move_create_single_cam_job

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation, so the description adds value by disclosing that the operation 'consumes processing credits.' This is a material side effect beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention other behaviors like asynchronous job execution or that repeated calls could create duplicate jobs.

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 action is front-loaded and the cost warning is a useful second sentence. Every part earns its place.

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 job-creation tool with 7 parameters and side effects, the description is minimally viable but has gaps. It does not mention that the take must already exist, that job progress can be checked via move_get_job, or how to choose between single-camera and multi-camera jobs. The output schema may cover return values, but usage context is still thin.

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 provides no parameter-level guidance and the schema coverage is only 43%, so the description was expected to compensate but does not. It does not explain take_id, options, outputs, clip_window, or how defaults behave, even though some of this is partially present in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Start') with a clear resource ('a single-camera mocap job'), and the 'single-camera' qualifier distinguishes it from move_create_multi_cam_job. It also adds a meaningful consequence ('This consumes processing credits') without muddying the core purpose.

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 implies this is for starting a single-camera mocap job, which helps separate it from the multi-camera sibling, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives. It also omits prerequisites such as the need for an existing take or how this relates to move_get_job or move_update_job.

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