set_3d_camera

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

The description discloses significant behavioral details beyond the annotations: partial-update semantics, rotation moving the target along camera -Z at the previous pivot distance, the exclusive-or constraint with target/up, fit behavior, and the return of the applied view state. This gives the agent a clear model of side effects without needing to infer them.

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 dense sentences each add unique value with no filler or repetition. The primary action and parameter scope are front-loaded, and the nuanced constraints and return behavior are packed into the remaining sentences efficiently.

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 complexity of an 8-parameter camera mutation tool with an output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation: it covers partial update semantics, all key parameters, behavioral constraints, fit behavior, and the return value. The output schema can supply the remaining shape details, and the description adds the operational context needed beyond structured fields.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden for explaining parameters. It explains rotation as absolute XYZ Euler degrees, FOV as degrees, and fit as framing visible geometry, while clarifying how target/up/position interact. However, scene_id is only inferable and the detail parameter is not explicitly described, though the return-state phrase hints at it.

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 uses a specific verb ("partially update") and identifies the exact resource and fields: camera position, target, up, and vertical FOV. It clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like set_3d_object or navigate_3d_view by scoping it to camera view parameters rather than scene objects or navigation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as navigate_3d_view, capture_3d_view, or manage_3d_views. The only usage-like instruction is the internal constraint that rotation cannot combine with target/up, which is about parameter combinations, not tool selection.

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