Create a camera version from one exact shot source, with optional position, target, and lens settings.
Create a camera version from one exact shot source.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No | ||
| lens_mm | No | ||
| shot_id | Yes | ||
| position | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the entire behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether this mutates the project, whether it is idempotent, what request_id is for, or what happens if a camera version already exists for the shot. Only the bare fact of a creation operation is conveyed.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean, but at this level of brevity for a 7-parameter mutation tool the terseness reads as under-specification rather than economy.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a 7-parameter, 4-required mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin — units, coordinate format, idempotency, and failure modes are all missing.
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% across 7 parameters, and the description names none of them. Critical fields like target, position, lens_mm (with a default of 50), request_id, and project_root are entirely unexplained in both schema and description, leaving the agent to guess at units, coordinate conventions, and idempotency 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?
The description names a verb ("Create") and a resource ("camera version") but leaves both terms undefined — an agent cannot tell what a "camera version" is or what constitutes a "shot source" in this pipeline. It is distinguishable from siblings only because no sibling deals with cameras, not because the description draws the distinction.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., must a shot already exist, must it be assembled first), and no indication of ordering within the shot workflow. The only implicit signal is that it belongs to shot setup, inferred from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.