Write Take Parameter Overrides

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states it wraps internal functions (take.OverrideNode + UpdateSceneNode + override[descid] = value) and is a write operation, but does not disclose idempotency, error handling, whether prior overrides are replaced, or effects of clear/remove_all parameters. Schema descriptions cover some of these, but the description adds minimal behavioral insight beyond purpose.

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?

Three concise sentences front-load core action and target types, then wrap internal detail and use case. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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?

Without output schema, description omits return type/status and error conditions. It covers purpose and use case well but doesn't address take existence requirement or parameter interactions (clear/remove_all). Adequate given schema covers parameter details, but some operational context missing.

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 100%, baseline 3. Description adds context that paths use set_params syntax, which aids agent understanding. No further parameter-level elaboration is needed given schema coverage.

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 the tool writes per-Take parameter overrides onto a target node, listing supported node types (object, tag, material, etc.). It differentiates from sibling set_params by emphasizing shot-by-shot variation use (e.g., override Focal Length per Take) and noting path syntax matches set_params.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this for shot-by-shot variations that share a single scene' and provides a concrete example (Focal Length override). References set_params for path syntax, guiding input. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, but context is clear enough.

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