Compare before and after actions to verify equivalence in camera, framing, FPS, resolution, and range for production QA.
Equivalent cameras/framing/FPS/resolution and range for preserved original and candidate Actions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| options | No | ||
| object_name | Yes | ||
| after_action | Yes | ||
| operation_id | No | ||
| before_action | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond those annotations, such as whether the tool mutates state, what it compares, or what happens with missing actions.
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 sentence, so it is not bloated, but it is dense and cryptic rather than efficiently front-loaded. The reader must infer the verb and the comparison semantics from the tool name.
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, with 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no usage guidance, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke this tool confidently.
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 5 parameters. The description vaguely maps to before_action and after_action via 'preserved original and candidate Actions', but does not explain object_name, options, or operation_id.
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 mentions camera, framing, FPS, resolution, and range, which hints at comparison criteria, but it never states the actual operation or what 'equivalent' means. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling compare tools such as production.animation_compare_actions or production.character_compare_before_after.
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 guidance on when to use this tool, what precondition it requires, or which sibling tool to choose instead. The phrase 'preserved original and candidate Actions' implies a workflow context but does not tell an agent when this comparison is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.