blender_camera_move

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the description is not contradicting them. The description adds useful behavioral context: orbit mode uses both keys and constraints so it renders deterministically, and it mentions that the orbit is a keyed turntable. However, it does not disclose side effects like whether existing camera animation is overwritten, whether constraints are permanently added, or whether the operation is destructive to prior keyframes.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose and modes. The second sentence adds useful context about orbit being the quickest route and deterministic rendering. It is slightly terse given the tool's 13 parameters, but every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 tool with 13 parameters, no output schema, and no required parameters, the description is somewhat thin. It explains the three modes at a high level but does not clarify how parameters like pivot, radius, target, up_axis, track_axis, or frame ranges interact with each mode. An agent would likely need to open the schema and infer mode-specific parameter usage, which is a notable gap for a complex animation tool.

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 62%, so the schema already documents many parameters. The description adds a little semantic context by grouping modes (orbit, constraint, dolly) and explaining that orbit is keyed and deterministic, but it does not explain the meaning of several parameters like up_axis, track_axis, frame_start/frame_end, or response_format beyond their schema descriptions. It partially compensates for the 38% gap but not fully.

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 clear verb ('Animate the camera') and resource, and enumerates three distinct modes: orbit turntable, follow constraint, and two-point dolly. It distinguishes the orbit mode as the quickest route to a review turntable, which helps differentiate among the modes, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like blender_camera_focus or blender_look_at.

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 when to use the tool ('quickest route to a review turntable around a model') and hints at mode selection, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like blender_camera_focus, blender_look_at, or blender_set_active_camera. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of prerequisites such as an existing camera or scene.

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