camera_shake_blueprint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects. It states 'Create a ... asset,' which indicates a write operation, but it does not specify whether existing assets are overwritten, whether permissions are needed, or what error behaviors occur. This is insufficient for a tool that creates files in a content directory.

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 concise and well-structured: one sentence states the purpose, and a second sentence details presets and parameter options. No filler or repeated schema information. It is instantly scannable and front-loaded.

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 21 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too high-level. It provides an overview of presets and parameter categories but does not cover critical operational details such as defaults, required fields (though none are required), conflict resolution, return behavior, or failure modes. An agent would need to infer too much before invoking this tool correctly.

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?

The description adds some value beyond the schema by grouping parameters (e.g., 'rot_pitch/yaw/roll_amp/freq', 'loc_x/y/z_amp/freq') and listing preset names. However, schema coverage is only 33%, and the description does not explain the meaning or units of many parameters (e.g., duration, blend times, shake_scale), so it only partially compensates for the low coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a CameraShake Blueprint asset.' It also lists available presets and the types of oscillation parameters, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like camera_shake_play or camera_shake_spawn that appear to operate on existing shakes.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to create a CameraShake Blueprint asset. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the 'Create' action and asset context are sufficient to differentiate from runtime shake tools. No misleading or contradictory guidance is present.

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