daz_apply_composition_rule

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the camera maintains horizontal distance while adjusting position and aim, and explains each rule's effect. However, it does not mention if keyframes are set or how conflicts are handled.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a behavioral note, a clear Args list, and a Returns section. No redundant information, every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters and a described output, the description covers behavior, parameters, and return values. However, it could mention error handling or constraints (e.g., node existence) and the approximate nature of distance maintenance could be clarified.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by detailing each parameter (camera_label, subject_label, rule) with explanations and rule options. This provides clear semantics beyond the schema's raw type information.

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 the tool's function: positioning a camera to frame a subject according to a composition rule. It lists specific rules and notes that the camera maintains horizontal distance, distinguishing it from generic framing tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like daz_frame_camera_to_node or daz_look_at_character. The description implies usage for compositional rules but does not mention alternatives or prerequisites.

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