Camera Orbit

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: it specifies that a camera and animation curves are created, that the scene is marked dirty, that each call adds another camera, and that an active Maya session is required. This is exactly the kind of operational side-effect detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

It is three short, front-loaded paragraphs: purpose first, then side effects, then boundary. Every sentence carries distinct decision-relevant information with no repetition or filler.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile, a full input schema, and an output schema handling return values, the description supplies the remaining decision-critical facts: side effects, non-idempotence, session requirement, and sibling disambiguation. Nothing needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including center, frames, radius, name, and session_key. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Create an orbiting camera with turntable animation around a point.' It also distinguishes the tool from its sibling camera_create by defining the boundary condition (static framing vs animated orbit), so an agent can choose correctly without opening either 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?

It explicitly names the alternative (camera_create) and the condition that selects this tool: use camera_orbit only when an animated orbit is needed. This is direct when/when-not guidance with a sibling named.

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