camera_set_active

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing that the call changes two separate pieces of state (viewport and render camera), which an agent would otherwise not know. It does not say whether the change persists in the scene file, whether it is undoable, or whether the render-camera change is global across scenes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single tidy sentence with the outcome front-loaded and no filler. Nothing in it is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a one-parameter mutation tool with zero schema description coverage, the omitted semantics of 'ref' and the lack of any persistence/undo note leave the definition only narrowly sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the sole parameter 'ref' accepts either an integer or a string, yet the description only says 'a camera' without indicating whether that means an index, a name, or a path. This is the one thing an agent most needs and it is absent from both schema and description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Make ... active') and the two concrete effects: viewport camera and render camera. It is unambiguous what the tool does, but it offers no differentiation from nearby siblings such as camera_set or render_set_cameras, which an agent must choose between.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus camera_set, camera_frame, or render_set_cameras, nor on prerequisites (does the camera need to exist first?). At best the usage is implied by the outcome it describes.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.