camera.follow_path

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

All annotations are false (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, destructive), so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and fails entirely. It does not say whether the operation mutates the scene, how the path constraint is applied, whether keyframes are generated, or what happens to pre-existing camera animation. "Risk: standard" is a coarse harness label, not a disclosed behavior.

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 text is short and there is no fluff, but the space is spent restating the command name and harness metadata rather than explaining the operation. Nothing useful is front-loaded — the first sentence could be deleted without losing information. A rewrite of the same length could carry purpose and parameter context, so this is adequate structure wasted on low-value content.

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?

This is a complex tool — 10 parameters, 6 required, nested objects, and an output schema — yet the description gives no guidance on what it does, what path/camera/frameStart/frameEnd refer to, or what result to expect. Even though an output schema exists, the description must still explain the operation and parameter relationships, which it does not. Severely incomplete for the complexity involved.

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 mentions none of the 10 parameters. Schema description coverage is only 50%, meaning five parameters (name, camera, frameEnd, frameStart, _expectedSceneRevision) have no documentation in either the schema or the description. The description adds zero parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides and does nothing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 only restates the command name ("PartMe Blender Harness command `camera.follow_path`"), which mirrors the tool name and title exactly. It never states that the tool makes a camera follow a curve path over a frame range — the actual operation is entirely left to inference from the name. The remaining content (risk, maturity, requirements) is harness metadata, not a statement of purpose, so this is a tautology.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as blender_camera_aim_at, blender_camera_create, or the animation tooling. The note that "Per-request argument checks and session policy still apply" is an invocation constraint, not usage guidance, and it offers no exclusions or decision criteria for selection.

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