daz_apply_camera_angle

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: it maintains horizontal distance, adjusts vertical position, and defaults distance if under 50 cm. It also lists all angle options. It lacks details on error handling or prerequisites, but covers core behavior well.

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 well-structured with a title, detailed paragraphs, and a bullet-like list for angle options. It is somewhat lengthy but all information is relevant. Minor verbosity could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, simple output) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers functionality, parameters, behavior, defaults, and return fields. It lacks information on error conditions or required permissions, but is largely complete for its purpose.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the provider relies entirely on the tool description. It fully explains each parameter: camera_label and subject_label are node labels, and angle is a string with all valid values listed. This adds essential meaning 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 uses a specific verb ('Apply') and resource ('camera angle preset'), and clarifies it is relative to a subject. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like daz_orbit_camera_around or daz_frame_camera_to_node by specifying presets.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (applying standard angle presets) and includes behavioral details like maintaining horizontal distance and defaulting if too close. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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