design_set_camera

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses one side effect (a perspective:camera layer is created if none exists) and the coordinate conventions, but it never says whether an existing camera is overwritten, whether the change is animated or instant, or what the response looks like. For a mutating tool with zero annotation coverage this leaves meaningful gaps.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and side effect, then the units and axis frame. Nothing is redundant, though the coordinate convention sentence is dense and could be split for clarity.

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?

All 8 parameters are fully documented in the schema with defaults and the FOV range, and no output schema exists, so the description covers the essentials. It is still missing how this interacts with the relative camera siblings and what happens to a pre-existing camera, which matters for an 8-param mutating tool.

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%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds genuine value the schema lacks: world units (1 unit = 1 meter) and the +X right / +Y up / +Z into-scene axis convention that gives meaning to positionX/Y/Z and targetX/Y/Z.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: sets scene camera position, target, and FOV, and names the three things being controlled. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like design_set_camera_preset or design_orbit_camera by being an absolute placement operation, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 statement of when to use this versus design_orbit_camera, design_dolly_camera, design_pan_camera, or design_set_camera_preset, which all touch the same camera. No prerequisites or exclusions are given; the only usage signal is implicit in the verb 'Set'.

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