Create / Update Take

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose an important non-obvious behavior — new takes are checked by default so they participate in batch renders — and states the return value. However, it does not clarify update semantics, such as whether updating an existing take merges or overwrites camera/render data when the clear flags are not set.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every phrase earns its place: sub-operations, default behavior, rationale, return value, and intended use case. No filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action, default behavior, return value, and the main use case. The schema handles individual parameters, but the description omits details about update-if-exists behavior and error conditions, so it is not fully complete.

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?

All nine parameters are already documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's `checked:false` mention repeats what the schema already says and adds no new parameter-level meaning.

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 the core operation precisely — 'Create or update a Take' — and enumerates the bundled sub-operations (AddTake + SetCamera + SetRenderData + SetChecked), so the tool's function is unmistakable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling `take_override`, so it falls just short of full 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 description provides clear context by framing the tool as the one-call compound alternative and suggesting a concrete use case: 'building per-shot take stacks programmatically.' It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks the explicit exclusion guidance needed for a 5.

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