move_create_multi_cam_take

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description only needs to add context beyond them. It adds the dependency on an existing calibration volume, which is genuine behavioral context. However, it does not disclose consequences such as repeated calls creating duplicate takes or any downstream processing triggered by creation. The added context is real but minimal.

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?

A single eleven-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with zero filler. It is efficient, though terse enough that it leans on the schema for detail.

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 and safety-relevant annotations are present, so return values and mutability do not need explanation. Given the moderate complexity (nested $defs for Source, SyncMethod, and ClipWindow, plus a cross-tool dependency on volume creation), the one-line description covers the core prerequisite but omits guidance on the single-camera alternative and the volume-finished workflow. Acceptable but with clear gaps.

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?

The description adds no parameter-level meaning; 'existing calibration volume' loosely maps to volume_id, which the schema already documents thoroughly ('Id of a FINISHED volume from move_create_volume_with_human'). With 50% schema coverage, the critical parameters (volume_id, sources, sync_method) carry rich schema descriptions, and the undocumented ones (name, expand, metadata) are low-risk and self-explanatory from their titles. The description neither compensates for nor worsens 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 states a specific verb (Create), a specific resource (multi-camera take), and a distinguishing constraint (against an existing calibration volume). The 'multi-camera' qualifier clearly differentiates it from the sibling move_create_single_cam_take, and the 'take' resource separates it from the job-creation tools. This is substantive, not a tautology.

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 constraint 'against an existing calibration volume' implies the primary prerequisite and therefore when the tool is applicable, and the schema reinforces this by requiring a FINISHED volume from move_create_volume_with_human. However, the description never explicitly states when to prefer this over move_create_single_cam_take, nor how it relates to move_create_multi_cam_job. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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