Read or move the editor camera

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description is consistent with these and adds real context: 'set' preserves direction, 'get' works in play mode and returns pitch/heading, and the engine has no live-camera turn call. It does not explain the destructive framing, but the behavioral picture is otherwise well covered.

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?

Front-loads the resource and prerequisite, then expands each action tersely. The final sentence about the missing turn capability is dense but earns its place by preventing a wrong tool choice; overall efficient though a single dense block.

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?

For a multi-action tool with no output schema, the description covers return values for 'get', the bridge prerequisite, direction-preservation semantics, and alternatives for the unsupported turn operation. An agent has everything needed to select and call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the per-parameter descriptions carry the baseline (3). The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying 'set' keeps direction and by describing the 'get' return content (position, view direction, pitch, heading) that the schema itself does not convey.

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 the specific resource (live viewport camera) and the three verbs (get/set/move) it supports. It explicitly differentiates itself from scene_edit action=focus and scene_settings editor_camera, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Names the prerequisite ('needs the bridge'), explains what each action does, and routes the agent to alternatives with the condition that selects them (turning the camera is impossible, so use scene_edit action=focus or scene_settings editor_camera). Nothing is left to inference.

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