set_cine_camera_lens

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), it discloses concrete side effects: minimum focus distance resets to 0, squeeze factor resets to 1, changes are not undoable and not saved, and it returns the read-back focal range. This is exactly the mutation-consequence context an agent needs.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by side-effect disclosure. The trailing 'Returns:' restatement is slightly redundant but overall the text is tight and every sentence carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by documenting the returned shape and the non-persistence/no-undo behavior. Covers the essentials for a destructive editor-world mutation; missing only targeting/permission prerequisites.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter (units, validity ranges, constraint that max >= min). The description adds little beyond noting which fields are ranges versus resets, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: replace lens limits of the CineCameraComponent on an editor-world actor, listing the affected fields (focal length, f-stop ranges, blade count). It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like set_cine_camera_focal_length, so an agent must infer the range-vs-single-value difference.

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 names the target resource but gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With closely related siblings such as set_cine_camera_focal_length, set_cine_camera_focus and set_cine_camera_aperture present, the absence of routing advice is a real gap.

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