Save a PTZ preset

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact not present in structured data — that an existing name is refused unless overwrite=true — which is valuable, but it never says that overwrite=true replaces/discards the previously stored preset, nor whether names are scoped per camera.

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?

Two short sentences, the core action front-loaded and the exception clause second; no filler and nothing repeated from the schema or title.

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 simple three-parameter mutation tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the action, the duplicate-name failure mode and the override switch. The remaining gap — an undocumented 'camera' parameter and no statement of what overwrite=true destroys — is minor but real for a tool flagged destructive.

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%, so the description carries the burden; it successfully explains the overwrite parameter's effect (bypassing the duplicate-name refusal) and implies 'name' is the preset label. The 'camera' parameter is never mentioned in the description despite having no schema documentation, and the exact form of the name (free text, case sensitivity, uniqueness scope) remains undefined.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Save the camera's current position as a preset'), which is more precise than the name alone because it clarifies that the stored value is the *current* position, not an arbitrary one. Siblings like ptz_list_presets, ptz_goto_preset and ptz_remove_preset are distinguishable by their verbs, but the description never names them or states how this differs from camera_save_baseline, which likely also captures current state.

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?

Usage is only implied: the reader infers you call this after positioning the camera with ptz_move. There is no explicit when-to-use versus camera_save_baseline or ptz_goto_preset, but the name-collision rule ('refuses an existing name unless overwrite=true') does give a concrete precondition for a repeat invocation.

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