blender_add_camera

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

Annotations only show readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so they do little to characterize behavior. The description confirms adding a camera but does not disclose side effects like object creation in the scene, active status changes, or what happens when location/rotation are omitted.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The lens/fov clarification and point_at tip are directly relevant and each sentence 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?

With nine parameters, no output schema, and no substantive behavioral or return-value information, the description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently handle edge cases. It supports a basic add-camera call, but many parameters and the tool's result format remain unexplained.

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 only 22%, so the description must compensate for the many undocumented parameters. It adds useful meaning for lens (units and examples) and fov_degrees (alternative to lens), but leaves location, rotation, collection, active, and name without meaningful elaboration, and point_at is only lightly reinforced.

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 opens with 'Add a camera', a clear verb+resource statement that leaves little doubt what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from camera-related siblings like blender_set_active_camera or blender_look_at, but its wording and camera-specific parameters are distinct enough.

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 choose this tool over alternatives such as blender_set_active_camera, blender_look_at, or blender_add_light. The only usage hint is 'Usually also pass point_at so it is actually aimed at something', which advises on parameter usage rather than tool selection.

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