setView

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the camera position changes immediately without animation and that the function returns a structured result. This adds some behavioral detail but does not go beyond what annotations imply (e.g., no discussion of failure modes or state effects). No contradiction with annotations.

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 just two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and use case. Every word earns its place—no fluff, no repetition of schema or annotation information. Ideal conciseness for an agent consuming the description.

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 7 params (2 required), existing output schema, and annotations, the description is complete enough: it states the purpose, immediate execution, and return shape. It could mention edge cases like invalid coordinates, but the schema's validation ranges and the output's error string cover that. Slightly more detail on when to use versus flight animations would boost completeness, but it's already sufficient.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (e.g., roll, pitch, height, heading, etc.), so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The tool description adds no extra parameter context, but the baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 the camera position immediately without animation.' The verb 'set' and resource 'camera position' are specific, and the contrast with animated alternatives (like flyTo) is implicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing immediacy and determinism.

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 explicitly advises 'Use for deterministic setup or instant view changes,' providing clear guidance on when to invoke the tool. It does not name alternatives, but the phrase 'without animation' implicitly distinguishes it from flyTo, and the context with siblings makes the intended usage clear. Minor omission: no explicit 'do not use for animated transitions,' but the guidance is adequate.

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