ecamm_set_camera

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say what happens on an unknown camera name, whether the switch is applied immediately to live output, or whether it can be reverted.

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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than disciplined brevity.

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 setter with no output schema and light annotations, the description should at least cover valid input sourcing and failure behavior. Nothing tells the agent how to obtain a valid camera name or id, which is the main practical gap.

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 0% on the single required string, so the description must carry the load, and "by name or id" does add real meaning: the value may be either identifier form. It still omits acceptable format, case sensitivity, or example values.

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?

"Pick the camera input" gives a specific verb and resource, so an agent knows this selects the active camera. It does not distinguish itself from the similarly-named sibling ecamm_set_source_mode, leaving some ambiguity about whether a camera is a kind of source.

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 states no conditions for use, no prerequisites (e.g. camera must be connected/enabled), and does not point to any alternative or to a discovery tool for valid camera values. It is purely an imperative with no context.

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