control_3d_video

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

Annotations provide only readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which add minimal safety infochen. The description adds significant behavioral context: file format support (GLB/GLTF/FBX/DAE vs 3DS static), 'stop restores camera', 'play needs two keyframes', and return of reusable keyframe poses. This goes beyond the sparse annotations and gives the agent necessary expectations about state changes.

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 a compact but information-dense paragraph. It front-loads the core purpose and then succinctly covers modes and constraints. No extraneous fluff; every sentence contributes. It could be slightly improved with bullet points for readability, but given the density, it remains concise.

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's complexity (10 parameters, 8 actions, two modes), the description is remarkably complete. It covers both modes, the actions, constraints, and file format caveats. The existence of an output schema (not shown) may cover return values, so not describing them is acceptable. The only gap is not explicitly stating error conditions or prerequisites, but this is minor compared to overall richness.

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 fully compensate. It does this well by explaining the role of key parameters: 'index/speed', 'goto(time in seconds, pauses)', 'dwell', 'duration', 'enabled', and clarifies that 'object_index' toggles mode. While it doesn't explain every parameter in detail (e.g., 'detail', 'scene_id'), it covers the most critical ones, making it highly valuable for correct invocation.

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 two main modes: controlling camera keyframes or model animation, with specific actions and a distinction based on the presence of object_index. It uses a specific verb ('control') and names the resource (3D video/keyframes/animation). While it doesn't differentiate from all 27 sibling tools, it is clear within its context of 3D scene manipulation.

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 provides explicit usage conditions: 'With no object_index, manage camera keyframes' and implies when to use object_index for model animation. It also lists specific required actions like 'play needs two keyframes' and 'Loop requires enabled'. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over siblings like 'set_3d_camera' or 'manage_3d_views', so it misses a clear 'when not to use' clause.

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