Stage Camera Goto

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it lists error conditions ('not in XR', missing object, non-camera object), states the page reply shape {arrived, camera}, and describes emitted mode state including walk precedence. It adds meaningful side-effect context beyond a bare 'goto' description.

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 front-loaded: purpose first, then platform constraint, errors, reply shape, and emitted state. It avoids repetition and every clause appears to carry information, though the parenthetical page command detail adds slight technical noise.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be fully documented, and the description still provides useful reply/emission context. However, the lack of schema parameter descriptions means the meaning of `scene` and `seconds` remains unaddressed, leaving the definition incomplete for correct parameter selection.

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% for three parameters. The description only clarifies that the page reads '`name` or `camera`' for the camera parameter, but it does not explain the required `scene` parameter or the optional `seconds` duration parameter. This does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 clearly states a specific action: 'Fly the desktop view to a Blender camera and look through it.' It identifies the resource (desktop view, Blender camera) and operation (goto/look through), but does not explicitly contrast with similar siblings such as stage_view_look_through or stage_view_focus.

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?

It gives a useful constraint ('Desktop only') and lists error cases, which implies when it will fail. However, it does not specify when to choose this tool over alternatives like stage_view_look_through or stage_camera_record, leaving selection guidance incomplete.

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