wizard_turntable

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does state the main side effects: camera orbit, lighting setup, and optional rendering. It does not disclose whether existing lights/cameras are replaced, whether the scene timeline/animation data is modified, or what happens when output_path is empty and render is true.

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 definition is compact and front-loaded: purpose in the first sentence, high-level behavior in the second, and an efficient Args block. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 six-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, it covers the essential invocation details. It remains incomplete about side effects on the current scene, the distinction from similar turntable tools, and the effective behavior when render is true but output_path is left blank.

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, and it does: every parameter is given a plain-language meaning, including the non-obvious 'Empty = world origin' for target_object and 'full rotation' for frames. This is more than the schema provides.

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 opening sentence names a specific action and resource: 'Create a turntable animation around the scene or a specific object.' It is clear and actionable. It does not earn a 5 because it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like create_turntable_animation or setup_turntable_camera.

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 implicitly signals its use case: it is an all-in-one wizard that orbits the camera, sets lighting, and optionally renders, so an agent can infer when to call it for a full turntable animation. However, it never states when not to use it or how it differs from setup_turntable_camera and create_turntable_animation.

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