Shift an existing camera layer horizontally or vertically without altering its look direction, useful for reframing a scene.
Shift the camera left/right and up/down without changing the look direction. Requires an existing camera layer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| up | No | World units to move up (negative = down). Default: 0. | |
| right | No | World units to move right (negative = left). Default: 0. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds the camera-layer prerequisite and the look-direction invariant, which are genuinely useful behavior facts, but says nothing about what happens when no camera layer exists (error vs no-op), whether the move is animated/keyframed, or whether it is undoable.
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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core behavior front-loaded and the prerequisite trailing. Nothing to cut.
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 two-optional-param pan with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers behavior, invariant, and precondition adequately. The remaining gap is failure behavior when the required camera layer is absent, which an agent would want to know before calling.
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 coverage is 100% and both params document direction and defaults in world units, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the axis mapping ('left/right and up/down') without adding units, sign conventions, or magnitude guidance beyond the schema.
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?
Specific verb+resource (shift the camera) plus the two axes of motion, and the clause 'without changing the look direction' behaviorally separates it from orbit/dolly siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the agent must infer the boundary rather than being told it.
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?
'Requires an existing camera layer' is a concrete precondition, and 'without changing the look direction' implicitly defines the case where panning (not orbit/dolly) is the right choice. No alternative tool is named and no when-not guidance is given, so it lands just under a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.