camera_set

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive local mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that a view_revision is returned, which is useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about what happens on revision mismatch, whether expected_revision is an optimistic-concurrency guard, or whether a failed set leaves the camera unchanged.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the mutated fields come first and the return value last. It is slightly cramped by semicolon-joining two distinct ideas, but nothing is redundant.

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?

Return behavior is partially covered ('returns a view_revision') despite no output schema, which is good. However, for a 7-parameter mutation gated by map_epoch and expected_revision, the absence of any statement about version-guard behavior or error outcomes leaves an agent under-informed.

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 carries the burden, and it only covers 4 of 7 parameters (position, yaw, pitch, fov). The three concurrency/identifier parameters (request_id, map_epoch, expected_revision) get no explanation of their role or expected failure semantics.

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 names a specific verb+resource (Set edit camera) and enumerates the mutated state: coordinates, yaw/pitch, and FOV. It also ties the result to a downstream use ('view_revision for capture'), which distinguishes it from the sibling view_capture, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'for capture' hints that this should be called before view_capture, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of prerequisites such as matching map_epoch or expected_revision.

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