setup_camera_dof

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic function but does not reveal side effects such as overwriting existing DOF settings, whether the camera must be active, or any impact on rendering. This is minimal transparency for a mutation tool.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately lists the two focus options. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with four parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, this description is too thin. It omits the fstop parameter entirely and leaves unclear the interaction between focus_object and focus_distance. An agent would not know how to correctly set both or understand default behavior, making it incomplete.

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 meaning by naming the two focus modes ('Focus on an object or at a specific distance'), which maps to focus_object and focus_distance. However, it does not explain the fstop parameter, the required camera parameter, or the relationship between the two focus parameters (e.g., mutual exclusivity or precedence). With 0% schema coverage, this only partially compensates.

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 a specific action ('Configure depth of field') on a specific resource ('a camera'), and mentions two focus modes. It is distinct enough from generic camera tools like set_camera_property, though it does not explicitly call out sibling alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied: this tool should be used when depth of field needs to be configured. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools like set_camera_property or camera_look_at, and no exclusions or alternative routing.

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