nudge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose genuine behavioral traits: relative positioning, that accumulated position can drift from the device's belief, and that the 'picture check' only verifies this call moved the camera rather than the absolute angle. These are meaningful caveats an agent can act on, though valid axis values and units remain undisclosed.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the rest is somewhat rambling and includes a trailing fragment about the 'picture check' that is never defined. Every sentence is not fully earning its place in this form.

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?

No annotations and no output schema mean the description must stand alone, and it covers the key behavioral caveat well. However, for a movement tool it omits parameter meaning and axis enumeration, leaving gaps an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 0% – neither 'axis' (string) nor 'by' (integer) has any schema description, and the description only hints at 'one axis' without listing valid values or explaining what the integer 'by' signifies or its units. It does not compensate for the near-total absence of parameter documentation.

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 and resource ('Move one axis') and clarifies it is relative to the device's reported position, which distinguishes it conceptually from absolute-positioning siblings like go_to. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implied 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?

The description implies when this is appropriate (relative movement, and its cumulative use 'after a series of nudges') and warns about drift, but it never states when to prefer this over siblings like aim, go_to, or sweep. Usage context is inferable but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are given.

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