cam_align_to_view

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

Annotations already mark the operation as destructive, and the description adds concrete mutation details: the camera's position and orientation change, and a target camera's target moves as well. This goes beyond the annotation by specifying exactly what gets modified.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core behavior, followed by the important target-camera nuance. The bilingual duplication is acceptable and does not add meaningful bloat.

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?

With one fully documented parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering destructiveness, the description provides enough detail to call the tool correctly. It covers the main effect and the target-camera special case, though broader usage and prerequisite context are absent.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the single 'camera' parameter as the camera name. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('align'), resource ('camera'), and target ('current view'), and clarifies what happens to the camera's position, orientation, and target. It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like cam_look_through or cam_set_viewport.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and names no related tools or exclusions. An agent must infer intended usage from the name and basic effect, with no help navigating the large sibling set.

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