production.character_capture_reference_views

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

The annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world operation. The description adds context about what is stored and the optional concept-art association, but it does not disclose overwrite behavior, persistence semantics, or how operation_id affects repeated calls.

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 tightly written sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. Every clause contributes useful information, including the optional concept-art association and the image-to-3D exclusion.

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 six-parameter write tool with no schema parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse to fully guide invocation. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but key inputs and mutation behavior remain undocumented.

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%, so the description must compensate for the six undocumented parameters. It gives meaning for views and concept-art images, but says nothing about object_name, width, height, or operation_id, leaving most parameters unexplained.

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 and resource: storing a reference view set with cameras, look, images, and silhouettes, plus optional concept-art association. It distinguishes the tool from image-to-3D workflows, but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools such as production.character_capture_candidate_views.

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 usage by saying what can be stored and includes one exclusion: "No image-to-3D." However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over related siblings like character_capture_candidate_views or qa_capture_viewport.

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