Create a lit shot version from a source version using a fixed production preset, specifying shot, project, intensity, and request details.
Create a lit shot version using a fixed production preset.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| preset | No | three_point | |
| shot_id | Yes | ||
| intensity | No | ||
| request_id | Yes | ||
| project_root | Yes | ||
| source_version | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutation (creating a new version) but does not disclose permissions, reversibility, side effects on source_version, or how the preset is selected. Only the bare fact of creation is stated.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, but it is severely under-specified for a six-parameter mutation tool. Brevity here reflects missing content rather than efficient communication.
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 six parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema explanation needed, the description is far too sparse. It omits parameter semantics, usage conditions, and behavioral details that an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.
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% for six parameters. The description mentions 'preset' but does not explain its default ('three_point'), nor does it clarify required parameters like project_root, shot_id, source_version, or request_id. It adds almost no semantic value beyond the parameter names.
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 (Create) and resource (lit shot version), and adds the mechanism (fixed production preset). It distinguishes from generic create_shot and render tools, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like assemble_shot or setup_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?
No when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no alternatives are mentioned. The phrase 'using a fixed production preset' hints at a lighting pass, but gives no guidance on when this tool is appropriate versus render_shot_preview or create_shot.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.