camera_move

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two important behaviors: a new document is created by default, and render_path additionally renders the result to a file. It does not state whether the source document is modified, whether the operation is undoable, or how long rendering takes, leaving meaningful gaps 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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the long move list is compactly enumerated rather than prose-wrapped. The text is dense and slightly run-on, but nearly every token carries information.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key creative controls and the side effect of document creation, but omits output dimensions, frame rate, and duration semantics. An agent could call it correctly with defaults but would be guessing on several parameters.

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, and it does for the most important parameters: it enumerates all 19 valid 'move' values (the schema has no enum), gives the intensity range 0.1-3, and shows a render_path example. It leaves fps, width, and seconds undocumented, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('renders the current picture through a moving virtual camera into an animation') and explicitly distinguishes itself from AI-based siblings with 'without any AI model', which separates it from generate_video/generate_image. An agent can identify the tool's function without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'without any AI model' implies this is the non-generative alternative to generate_video, and 'a new document by default' hints at the default workflow. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative, so the routing signal is only implied.

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