Camera Create

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

Annotations already disclose the safety profile: not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, closed-world, so the agent knows this mutates scene state and cannot be safely retried. The description adds the shot-type vocabulary but says nothing about whether the new camera persists across sessions, whether it is undoable via scene_rollback, or that a Maya session is involved.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the value list consigned to the second sentence. No filler or repetition.

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 an output schema present the description need not explain returns, and the annotations carry the safety profile, so the remaining gap is small: it does not mention that a Maya session is required or how this relates to camera_orbit when adjusting an existing camera. Adequate for a 6-param creation 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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the enumerated set of valid shot_type values (extreme_wide, wide, medium, close, extreme_close, over_shoulder, bird_eye, low_angle) that the schema omits — the schema only says 'Shot type (default "medium")' with no enum. That is genuine added meaning over 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 ('Create a camera') plus its scope ('positioned for a specific shot type'), which is clearer than a bare 'create camera'. It does not name or contrast the closest sibling (camera_orbit) or any other scene_* tool, so an agent gets a clear action but no explicit sibling differentiation.

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 shot-type list implies the intended workflow (framing a shot within a Maya scene), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no stated prerequisites (e.g. that a session/target must exist), and no contrast with camera_orbit for moving an existing camera.

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