frame_objects_with_camera

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It states non-obvious behavior: distance is computed from render aspect ratio and FOV, and the clipping range is widened to suit. It could be more explicit that the camera transform is overwritten or that a camera may be created, but the core mutation and side effects are disclosed.

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?

Three sentences, all useful and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the computed behavior, and the third gives usage context. No filler or repetition.

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 tool with six optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains the operation, the computation, the side effect on clipping, and the intended workflow position. It does not discuss error cases or return values, but those are not essential for this camera-framing tool.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a general angle-control rationale but does not meaningfully elaborate parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The undocumented set_active parameter is not compensated for, though its name makes it reasonably self-explanatory.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Position a camera so the given objects exactly fill the frame.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from generic camera movement or look-at behaviors, and the mention of using it before render_preview situates it in a concrete workflow.

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 clear context for when to use it: 'Use this before render_preview when you want to control the angle.' It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives such as look_at, but the sequencing and framing intent are clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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