set_view_target

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the runtime/PIE-only scope, which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about whether the change persists, permission requirements, or behavior when the actor is invalid. Adequate but incomplete for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loads the core action in one sentence and follows with the sibling routing and a compact Args block. Well-sized, though the Args listing is slightly redundant with the schema at a small cost to tightness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary. The description covers purpose, scope, alternative tool, and all three parameters, leaving only edge-case behavior (invalid actor, failure modes) unstated.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: actor accepts a label, object name, or full path from find_actor; blend_time is in seconds; player_index is a local player/controller index. Units and accepted formats add real value beyond the bare schema types.

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 (set) and resource (runtime player camera view target to an actor), and explicitly distinguishes itself from focus_editor_camera. An agent can identify this tool from the sibling list without opening the schema.

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?

Gives both the when ('intended for PIE/simulation') and the when-not with the named alternative ('Use focus_editor_camera for the editor viewport'). This is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.

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