design_orbit_camera

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the prerequisite of an existing camera layer, but does not explain the mutation's effects, what happens if the prerequisite is unmet, whether the orbit is relative to current orientation, or what the tool returns.

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 two tight sentences with the operation front-loaded and the prerequisite appended. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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?

The tool is a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should provide enough behavioral context for correct invocation. It gives the key prerequisite and the basic orbit concept, but omits what the tool returns, error behavior when no camera exists, and whether the orbit is applied relative to the current camera state.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents all five parameters including defaults and positive rotation directions. The description only restates the presence of horizontal and vertical angles and the center point, so it adds little beyond the structured schema and a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Orbit the camera around a center point by a horizontal and/or vertical angle.' This clearly distinguishes the operation from generic camera setting or panning, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as design_pan_camera or design_dolly_camera.

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 prerequisite 'Requires an existing camera layer' gives implied usage context, telling the agent this should be used after a camera exists. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives like design_set_camera, design_pan_camera, or design_dolly_camera, leaving the agent to infer when orbiting is preferred.

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