Posicionar camera 3D

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

Annotations already declare mutability (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds a caution to call get_camera first and only change necessary fields, which hints at potential side effects of omitting parameters, but does not detail what happens to optional params or coordinate conventions. No contradiction with annotations, but minimal extra behavioral detail.

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?

The description is two concise sentences, purpose first, then usage advice. No wasted words.

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?

The tool has six parameters, three nested objects, and no output schema. The description covers the basic workflow (get then set) but does not explain behavior for omitted optional parameters (fieldOfView, viewToWorldScale), nor coordinate system conventions or constraints between direction/upDirection. Given the getter exists for reference, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

All six parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only advises to change what is necessary, which is generic and not parameter-specific. It adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema.

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?

The description states a clear verb ('Define') and resource ('camera 3D do Solibri'), and explicitly names the complementary getter tool (solibri_get_camera), distinguishing it from the sibling getter. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

The description instructs the agent to call solibri_get_camera first and only change what is necessary, providing a clear usage protocol for setting the camera without unintentionally altering unknown state. It does not list other alternatives, but for a setter the getter is the main counterpart, so this is adequate.

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