setupCameraRig

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it omits the important fact that this is a mutation which also touches existing content (enable3DOnLayers flips the 3D switch on every other layer in the comp). It says nothing about return values, undoability, or side effects on the target composition.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the key capability first and the optional behavior last. Minor waste in the adjective 'professional', but nothing structurally wrong.

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?

Seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema means the description should explain the target composition and what the caller gets back (a rig null, a camera layer, names?). Instead it stops at a feature list, leaving the agent to infer the post-conditions of the creation.

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%, so defaults, units, and ranges are already documented per parameter; the description only echoes zoom, distance, and 3D enablement as concepts. That meets the baseline for a well-covered schema but adds no syntax or formatting detail beyond it.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a professional 3D Camera Rig') and enumerates the pieces it builds: a 3D Null orbit controller, zoom, distance, and optional 3D enablement. No sibling tool does anything comparable (the others are expression, footage, keyframe, and effect operations), so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

It says what the tool creates but never when to reach for it, what prerequisites exist, or what to do instead if a rig already exists. There is no guidance about supplying compName vs compIndex or what happens if neither is provided.

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