Change points of view

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and not read-only, and the description reinforces this by exposing the 'delete {i}' operation. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: units (cm and degrees), coordinate conventions (yaw 0 toward +y, pitch positive down), and that missing store values come from the visitor. This is strong supplementary transparency.

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 dense and information-rich, with every clause contributing operational detail. It is somewhat run-on and mixes commands with coordinate conventions, but it remains compact and front-loads the core purpose before the details.

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 10 optional parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers all necessary operational aspects: the four actions, parameter units, coordinate system, default behavior for missing values, and the sibling tool for listing. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly across its main use cases.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains the action subcommands, unit conventions, yaw/pitch orientation, and that look_at sets yaw and pitch. This helps an agent use the parameters correctly without guessing coordinate meanings.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Change the points of view' and enumerates the four concrete operations (view, aerial, store, delete). It also differentiates itself from the sibling 'cameras' tool by explicitly saying 'The list is the cameras tool.'

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to show, store, or delete stored views, or return to orbit view. It explicitly points to the 'cameras' tool for listing views, which is a useful alternative. It does not exhaustively discuss exclusions versus other sibling tools, but the main routing is clear.

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