blender_camera_focus

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

The description discloses that the tool alters camera aim and can pull the camera back to fit a target, which is relevant beyond the annotations. Annotations already signal read-only=false and destructive=false, so the mutation is not surprising, but the description does not mention side effects like selection/activation or undo behavior.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in a short first sentence. The second sentence adds context about why the tool is useful, though 'a lot of blind iteration' is slightly informal and not strictly necessary.

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?

The schema covers all parameters and annotations provide safety hints, but the description lacks explicit alternative routing and does not state what the tool returns or what happens with the active camera. It is adequate for a simple tool, but not fully complete.

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 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the input schema; the description itself adds little beyond saying framing is optional. It broadly matches fit_distance and objects but does not explain parameter interactions beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Aim a camera at something and, optionally, frame it.' This clearly conveys the core action, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like blender_look_at or blender_camera_move.

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 'why is my render empty' note implies a use case: when a render is empty because the camera is not aimed/framed. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives and does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites.

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