rupa_adegan_kamera

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds useful context that this only controls the initial view and that subsequent orbit belongs to the reader. It does not describe what is overwritten, but annotations carry the primary safety burden.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main resource and attributes, then adds the key behavioral distinction. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a mutating camera-setup tool with no output schema and sparse parameter documentation, the description omits coordinate conventions, whether an existing camera is replaced, and any return or confirmation behavior. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it confidently without additional assumptions.

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 only 25%, with only 'ruang' documented. The description mentions posisi, target, and fov, giving them the 'initial camera' meaning, but it does not explain units, coordinate space, array ordering, or how ruang affects the camera. With such low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate and did not.

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 the resource (initial camera) and the attributes being set (position, target, field of view), and adds the temporal scope 'saat halaman pertama dibuka'. It also distinguishes this from interactive orbit by noting 'orbit sesudahnya milik pembaca', which separates it from related scene tools.

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 clearly states when this tool applies: setting the camera seen when the page first opens. It also implicitly excludes later reader-controlled orbit, which tells an agent this is not for interactive camera manipulation. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the usage context is clear.

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