ae_cameraMove

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

Annotations already declare the mutation but non-destructive profile, so the lower bar applies; the description still adds genuine behavior — its side effect of creating a camera when none exists, the px unit for distance, and 'smooth ease' easing. It does not say whether existing camera animation is overwritten or how the generated keyframes are laid out, which keeps it below 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: verb and resource first, then the preset list, then temporal/spatial framing, then the camera-creation caveat. The preset enumeration duplicates the schema enum, but it is compact and readable, so only a minor deduction.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers most of what an agent needs: what is animated, the preset set, the timing and distance framing, and the implicit-create behavior. Missing time units, ease range, and the effect on pre-existing camera keyframes leave meaningful gaps.

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 29%, so the description carries real weight and does partially compensate: it names the move options, gives distance in px, and explains that motion runs from startTime over duration. But time units (seconds vs frames) and the numeric range/meaning of 'ease' are left unstated, and 'camera' vs 'compositionName' semantics come only from the schema.

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 ('animate a camera'), enumerates the exact preset moves, and notes it falls back to creating a camera if none exists — which implicitly separates it from ae_addCamera and ae_setTransform. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling alternative, so it stays just below a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to prefer this over ae_addCamera + ae_setKeyframe, or when a preset is inappropriate and manual keyframing is better. The agent must infer fitness from the description alone.

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