motion_sweep

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, establishing this as a non-destructive but state-changing operation. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: the position is restored at the end of the sweep ("В конце положение возвращается"), which matters for downstream state assumptions. It does not, however, explain blocking behavior, motion speed/steps semantics, or whether any physical/simulated state is affected during the run.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action leads and the state-restoration note follows. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity contributes to the coverage gaps noted elsewhere.

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 mutating, non-idempotent tool with no output schema and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is too thin. An agent cannot determine units, valid ranges, what steps does, or what the call returns or yields in terms of observable effects.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must carry the semantic load. It only implicitly gestures at the angle range (start/stop) and the joint, and says nothing about units, valid ranges, or what "steps" (default 24) controls. The remaining parameter meanings are undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

"Прогон шарнира по углу" names a verb (sweep/run) and a resource (joint) plus the sweep dimension (angle), so the general action is identifiable. However, it never clarifies whether this is a simulated kinematic sweep or a physical motion, what units the angle uses, or how it differs conceptually from siblings like measure or joint_create. The purpose is only loosely pinned down.

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?

There is no statement of when this tool should be chosen over alternatives such as measure, validate, or joint_create, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and the two-sentence description.

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