capture_review

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior beyond the schema: identical camera framing is enforced, the review_id/view must be reused, the capture requires waiting for completion, and lighting differs by source (engine project lighting vs Blender studio rig). It omits permissions, failure modes, and whether tasks can be canceled or are idempotent.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in one sentence, then a compact workflow line and a routing/lighting note. Three short paragraphs with essentially no filler, though the final lighting sentence sits apart from the invocation guidance.

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 4-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the workflow and points to get_review/get_preview for results, but leaves asset_id semantics and stage parameter detail undocumented. Adequate to call the tool, incomplete for edge cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains view (studio rig for Blender source previews) and the review_id reuse rule, and implies stage via before/after wording, but asset_id is never addressed and stage values are only inferable from the workflow text.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Capture a native before/after comparison') with the distinguishing scope of identical saved camera framing. An agent can tell this apart from get_review, get_preview, and capture-adjacent siblings like inspect_target without opening a schema.

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?

Gives the actual workflow sequence ('capture before, wait for completion, modify asset, then capture after with the same review_id and view'), which is strong when-to-use guidance, and routes to siblings ('get_review lists capture tasks; get_preview(request_id) returns images'). It stops short of stating exclusions or when this is not appropriate.

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