camera_manage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral details such as make_current unmarking previous cameras in one undo, class-aware configure behavior, Vector2 coercion, empty path resolution for get, and the flat-parameter compatibility alias. This is more than a minimal description, though it omits some edge-case side effects like invalid path handling.

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 structured with a one-line summary, then bullet-pointed operations with signatures. Each bullet adds distinct operational detail or a caveat (e.g., 'Pass only the edges to change'). There is no fluff or repetition, and the information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's multi-operation complexity, the description is complete: it covers all eight operations, their parameters, edge cases like empty path for get, and the call shape. An output schema is indicated as present, so return values need not be explained. The description fully equips an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema only defines op as an enum, params as a free-form object, and session_id, providing almost no parameter information. The description compensates fully by listing each operation's parameters with names, types, defaults, optional markers, and special semantics (e.g., drag_margins fractions, overrides merging). This is essential for correct use.

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 begins with 'Camera2D / Camera3D authoring' and enumerates eight specific operations with signatures, making the tool's purpose explicit. It also differentiates from sibling tools by stating that transforms belong to node_set_property, not here.

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?

Provides clear negative guidance: transforms should be set via node_set_property, not camera_manage. Also explains the canonical call shape and compatibility alias for parameter passing. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer camera_manage over the many sibling scene/camera-related tools beyond this one exclusion.

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