focus_capsule_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the entire disclosure burden introduce. It states a user-facing request ('request that Cinema 4D show its exact graph') but doesn't disclose whether this modifies state, changes selection, opens a panel, or has side effects. It also doesn't mention important constraints like whether graph_target needs to be a specific node type.

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 a single sentence, no fluff, but the phrasing 'Select a Capsule owner and request that Cinema 4D show its exact graph' is awkwardly indirect ('request that' instead of 'shows/focuses'). It is concise but not optimally structured; however, it doesn't waste words.

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?

Given no annotations, one undocumented free-form parameter, and siblings performing similar graph operations, the description does not provide enough context. It fails to explain what a Capsule owner is, what graph is shown, how output is returned, or any prerequisites. Overall incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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 has one free-form object 'graph_target' with 0% schema description coveragecars. The description loosely implies graph_target identifies a 'Capsule owner', but gives no shape, keys, or example, leaving the agent to guess what fields to provide. This is a significant gap for a single-parameter tool.

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 identifies a verb ('focus' / 'request ... show') and a resource ('Capsule owner' graph), but it's vague about what 'show its exact graph' actually accomplishes. It doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like inspect_capsule_graph or layout_capsule_graph, leaving ambiguity about the operation's precise effect.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this vs. alternatives. The clustering of capsule graph tools (inspect/edit/layout/focus) makes this a significant gap. The description implies intent but offers no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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