pro_shot_pack

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the original model-view camera is restored, no CAD save or rebuild occurs, no automatic explosion is applied, and the call is asynchronous with an operation_id to poll. These are exactly the non-destructive and side-effect details the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) cannot convey.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the outcome and artifact list, then constraints, then route semantics, then the async contract. The telegraphic fragments ('Exact active saved part/assembly only') are efficient but slightly elliptical.

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 no output schema, the description covers the return contract (operation_id plus polling) and the produced artifacts, and it flags the camera-restore and no-save guarantees an agent needs before invoking a render. For a 7-parameter asynchronous render tool this is complete enough to call 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?

Schema description coverage is only 14% across 7 parameters, so the description needed to carry parameter meaning and largely does not. The 1-12 shot count and the render_route behavior are already encoded in the schema (maxItems/minItems and the render_route description), while passes, denoiser, result_view, request_id, and document_path are explained nowhere at all.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create 1-12 explicit native product shots') and enumerates the artifacts produced (previews, final PNGs, contact sheet, JSON manifest). It never names a sibling such as pro_visualize_render, pro_render_job, or pro_capture_view, so the agent must infer which render tool to pick.

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?

Gives clear operating context: 'Exact active saved part/assembly only', opt-in project route vs. default addin route, and 'poll it instead of resubmitting' for the async result. It stops short of saying when this tool should be chosen over the many neighbouring render/capture tools.

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