move

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say that the 'destruction' is limited to the camera view state (not molecular data), whether the move is relative to current position, or whether the move can be undone or reset. With annotations carrying the safety signal, this is thin additional disclosure.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the operative verb is up front. It is close to maximally compact for the amount of information it chooses to convey, though that compactness comes at the cost of substance rather than being paired with it.

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 two-parameter, low-complexity view manipulation tool with full schema coverage, full annotations, and an output schema, the description covers what the tool does at the level an agent needs in order to call it. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing, since parameter details live in the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the axis vocabulary (x/y/z) and that distance is in Angstroms with a default of 1. The description contributes no extra meaning about units, defaults, sign conventions, or direction of travel, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 plus resource: 'Moves the camera along an axis.' An agent knows this is a camera translation operation rather than an object manipulation. It does not, however, differentiate itself from adjacent view-control siblings such as turn, rock, forward, or backward, which is what would be needed for a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (an active viewport/session), and no naming of alternatives like turn (rotation) or center/orient (framing). The agent must infer from the name alone when this tool is the right choice.

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