applyCameraMove

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a meaningful behavioral trait: automatic keyframing and easing are applied, which is not obvious from the name. However, it says nothing about required setup (camera layer, active comp), whether it mutates existing keyframes, or what it returns.

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 that efficiently conveys purpose, mechanism, and full move-type vocabulary. No filler.

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 13-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate on purpose and mechanism, but omits prerequisites, side effects, and return behavior. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps an agent would need to infer elsewhere.

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?

The name '运镜' and parenthetical Chinese aliases map to moveType enum values, but the schema already documents every parameter at 100% coverage, including enum values and defaults. The description adds no syntax, format, or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Execute') and resource ('cinematic camera movements') and enumerates all 12 move types, which makes the tool's scope unambiguous. It doesn't differentiate itself from siblings like setCameraProperties or createCameraRig, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., must a camera exist first?), and no mention of alternatives to this tool. The enumeration of move types implies the use case but provides no routing logic.

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