move_create_multi_cam_job

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

The description adds an important behavioral detail beyond the annotations: 'This consumes processing credits.' This warns the agent about a real side effect and cost not captured by readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, or destructiveHint. While it doesn't detail all side effects, this is a meaningful disclosure for a state-changing job-creation operation.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the additional credit-consumption warning earns its place. This is a model of concise, structured writing.

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 tool with 8 parameters and important job-creation semantics, the description is too thin. It omits prerequisites, default output behavior, clip window options, and asynchronous job lifecycle context. The output schema and annotations help, but they do not fill the gaps left by the sparse description.

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 low at 38%, so the description carries responsibility for explaining parameters, but it does not mention take_id, options, outputs, clip_window, or number_of_actors. The only parameter-related context is implicit in 'multi-camera mocap job.' The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema and fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 clearly states the action: 'Start a multi-camera mocap job.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the phrase 'multi-camera' distinguishes this from the sibling single-camera job tool. This goes beyond a tautology and gives an agent a clear understanding of the tool's core function.

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 provides no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives like move_create_single_cam_job or move_update_job. It lacks explicit conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and the generic 'Start a...' phrasing.

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