Move an existing camera layer forward or backward along its look direction by a set distance. Use positive values to approach the target and negative values to pull away.
Move the camera forward or backward along its look direction. Positive = toward target, negative = away. Requires an existing camera layer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| distance | Yes | World units to move (positive = forward, negative = backward). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full load. It discloses the sign convention and the camera-layer prerequisite, but it says nothing about whether the change is persisted, undoable, or what happens if no camera layer exists.
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?
Three short sentences with zero filler, and the direction semantics are front-loaded before the prerequisite.
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 one-parameter transform with no output schema, the description covers direction, sign semantics, and the prerequisite. The main remaining gap is how the change is committed or persisted, which is minor for a simple camera nudge.
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 single parameter has 100% schema description coverage, and the description only restates the sign convention already in the schema. It adds no units or bounds beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline rather than exceeding it.
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 states a specific verb and resource — moving the camera along its look direction — and the phrase 'along its look direction' distinguishes it from orbit and pan, which move on other axes. However, it never names design_orbit_camera or design_pan_camera, so an agent must infer the distinction.
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?
'Requires an existing camera layer' is a real prerequisite worth having. But the description says nothing about when to prefer this over design_orbit_camera, design_pan_camera, or design_set_camera, so the agent has to reason about which camera tool applies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.