daz_set_active_camera

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the previous active camera is returned, the viewport updates immediately, and the camera must exist. It does not mention any destructive side effects, but none are expected. The behavioral information is sufficient for a safe operation.

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 clear sections (Summary, Args, Returns, Example, Note). While slightly verbose, every sentence adds value, such as the note about listing cameras and the viewport update. It could be tightened slightly, but overall it is effective.

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 (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary aspects: input, output (including previousCamera), example usage, and precondition (camera must exist). The output schema existence reduces the need to explain return values, but the description still provides useful context.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It describes camera_label as 'Display label of the camera to activate' and provides multiple examples with different labels, clarifying the expected input beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Set which camera is active in the DAZ Studio viewport.' It uses a specific verb ('set') and resource ('active camera'), and the focus on activation differentiates it from sibling tools like daz_apply_camera_angle or daz_frame_camera_to_node.

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 guidance on when to use the tool, including prerequisites: 'The camera must exist in the scene. Use daz_scene_info() to list available cameras.' It also explains the effect ('viewport updates immediately') and mentions the return of the previous camera, helping the agent understand context.

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