camera_post_effect_file

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety bar is lower. The description contributes the mode-switch semantic (same tool mutates in one branch, reads in the other), but says nothing about whether loading overwrites the current effect stack, what file format/encoding path expects, or what errors surface.

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 front-loaded sentence with the operation first and the mode flag second; nothing is wasted. The compactness is borderline under-specified rather than bloated, but structurally sound.

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 no explanation, and the two modes are covered. Missing pieces are material for a file I/O tool: the meaning of 'ref', whether the current preset is replaced on load, and the expected path format — enough gaps to rate only minimum-viable.

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 carries the full burden: it explains only 'save' and implies 'path' ('from a file'). The 'ref' parameter — an anyOf integer/string/null, presumably the camera selector — is never mentioned, so an agent has no idea how to target a specific camera versus the active one.

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?

Names a specific resource (camera post effect preset) and two concrete operations (load from file / save current), so an agent can tell it apart from camera_set or sky_load/sky_save. It stops short of any explicit sibling differentiation, but the verb+resource pair is unambiguous.

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 parenthetical '(save=true)' gives the one branch condition needed to pick load vs save, which is real guidance. There is no statement about prerequisites, what happens when the file does not exist, or when to prefer this over camera_set / another preset mechanism.

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