cam_set

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description's 'modify' adds no new behavioral information. It does not disclose whether only supplied properties are overwritten, whether the camera must already exist, or what happens on failure. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

One compact bilingual sentence front-loads the verb and resource, followed by a complete list of the modifiable properties. There is no filler or unnecessary explanation.

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 the schema documenting all 10 parameters and annotations marking the operation as non-read-only/destructive, the description plus schema is largely sufficient. The main missing context is behavior when the named camera does not exist and an explicit pointer to cam_set_viewport for viewport changes.

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 100% and every parameter has its own bilingual description, so the baseline is 3. The description simply repeats the same field names and does not add semantics such as coordinate order, units beyond the schema, or relationships among fields.

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 pair ('Modify a camera') and enumerates exactly which attributes change (name, position, target, FOV, focal length, f-stop, shutter, ISO, DOF). This clearly separates it from read/lookup tools like cam_get, though it does not explicitly call out the viewport-setting sibling 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 intended use is implied: whenever an agent needs to change camera properties, this is the tool. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusion such as 'for viewport changes, use cam_set_viewport'.

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