Shake the camera on impact with adjustable strength (0.1 subtle, 0.3 normal, 0.8 strong) and duration, settling over time. Use for realistic impact feedback in Blender effects.
Shake the camera at an impact, settling down over time. 카메라 흔들림. strength m 단위(0.1 살짝, 0.3 보통, 0.8 강하게).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seed | No | ||
| frame | No | ||
| duration | No | ||
| strength | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the settling behavior over time and provides strength scale guidance, which adds context beyond the schema. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention whether the shake is applied to the current frame, whether it modifies the camera permanently, or how it interacts with other camera tools.
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 short and front-loaded with the core behavior. The Korean translation is somewhat redundant but adds the strength scale detail. It earns its place by providing the key parameter guidance, though it could be slightly more structured.
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 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is incomplete. It explains only strength and leaves seed, frame, and duration undefined. An agent would need to infer or experiment to understand the full calling contract.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the four undocumented parameters. It only explains 'strength' with example values (0.1, 0.3, 0.8) and mentions 'm 단위' (meters). It does not explain seed, frame, or duration, leaving the agent to guess their meanings and defaults.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Shake the camera at an impact, settling down over time.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like camera, set_look, and set_timing. The Korean phrase adds a bit of redundancy but doesn't obscure the purpose.
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 implies usage context ('at an impact') and provides strength guidance (0.1 slight, 0.3 normal, 0.8 strong), which helps an agent choose appropriate values. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like camera or set_timing, nor does it mention any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.