cam_create

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

The annotations already signal a mutating/destructive operation, and the description is consistent with that. It adds the free/target behavioral variants and the ability to set position, target, and fov, but mostly restates schema information rather than explaining side effects or creation behavior.

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 bilingual sentences, opens with a clear verb-object pair, and contains no filler. It is well-structured, scannable, and appropriately sized for a simple creation tool.

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?

The schema and annotations cover the parameters and mutation safety well, but the description does not distinguish cam_create from cam_create_physical or describe what happens after creation. It is sufficient for basic use but incomplete for confident tool selection among camera siblings.

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. The description merely echoes 'position, target and fov' without adding semantics beyond the schema—such as which parameters apply to which camera type or coordinate expectations.

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 specific verb and resource ('Create a camera') and names the supported subtypes 'free' and 'target', making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling cam_create_physical, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies it should be used when creating a standard free or target camera, but it provides no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or exclusions. Given the close sibling cam_create_physical, the absence of routing guidance is a noticeable gap.

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