armorpaint_set_camera

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

The description discloses the primary state-changing behaviors: orbiting by yaw/pitch, moving by zoom, resetting the view, and switching projection modes. It is consistent with readOnlyHint=false, but it does not mention side effects, whether changes persist, or whether a project must be open. The annotations are all false, so the description carries the burden and only partially satisfies it.

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 only two sentences, with the core actions front-loaded and no redundant filler. Every clause adds useful information, including the projection enum mapping.

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 core camera operations are described, and the output schema reduces the need to explain return values. But with six parameters, particularly the missing fov semantics and lack of guidance on how reset, yaw/pitch, and zoom interact, the description is not fully complete for reliable invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain parameters, and it does cover yaw/pitch as radians, zoom as forward movement, reset as view reset, and projection as 0/1. However, the fov parameter is not mentioned at all, and zoom direction or parameter interaction is left vague.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: it orients, moves, and resets the camera, and it maps projection values to perspective/orthographic. It uses specific verbs with a specific resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the sibling armorpaint_set_viewport, so it falls just short of 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?

The description explains what the tool does but gives no guidance about when to use it versus alternatives like armorpaint_set_viewport. There are no usage conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.

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