validate_shot_spec

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait (non-destructive, 'without changing Blender'), which is valuable given no annotations are provided. However, it omits other important behaviors like return values, error handling, or side effects, leaving the agent to infer from the output schema.

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 single sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the action verb. It is efficient, though perhaps too terse given the tool's complexity, but conciseness itself is good.

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 tool with two highly complex nested parameters and an output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It provides zero context about validation logic, constraints, or expected behavior, making it almost useless for an agent to gauge what will happen or how to interpret results.

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%, and the description provides no information about the two parameters (shot_spec and scene_snapshot). While 'typed shot' hints at shot_spec, scene_snapshot is completely unmentioned, failing to compensate for the low 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 validates a typed shot and explicitly notes it does not change Blender. It distinguishes from siblings like preview_shot by emphasizing validation over previewing, though it does not elaborate on what validation entails.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only hint is 'without changing Blender,' implying a dry-run safety check, but there is no explicit mention of use cases, exclusions, or related tools such as preview_shot or apply_scene_patch.

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