set_cine_camera_filmback

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that sensor offsets are silently reset to 0, that no undo transaction is created and nothing is saved, and that the returned values are a read-back whose mismatch flips success to false. These are exactly the destructive/irreversible details the destructiveHint and idempotentHint flags cannot convey.

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?

Purpose and the side-effect warning are front-loaded in a compact first sentence, followed by the failure semantics. The trailing 'Returns:' line partially restates the read-back sentence before it, a small redundancy that keeps it just short of ideal.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, it covers the safety profile (no undo, nothing saved), the verification contract, and the returned fields. It does not state what happens if the named actor is absent or lacks a CineCameraComponent, a minor remaining gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the mm unit, the positive/<=200 bounds, and the name-or-label lookup, so the description's restatement of units and lookup method adds no new meaning. A 3 baseline is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 (Set) and resource (sensor size / filmback in mm) and scopes it precisely to the CineCameraComponent on an editor-world actor located by name or label. This clearly separates it from siblings like set_cine_camera_focal_length, set_cine_camera_aperture, and set_cine_camera_lens, which the agent can rule out without opening their schemas.

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 phrase 'on an editor-world actor' implies the applicable context (editor world rather than a PIE/runtime context), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no named alternative for related lens/aperture operations. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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