sweep

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses the control mechanism ('streaming absolute targets at 15 Hz rather than one jump, which is how this hardware was measured moving smoothly') and the blocking cost ('Long sweeps take as long as seconds, so expect to wait'). It omits permissions, axis range limits, and whether a sweep can be interrupted or superseded.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then usage, mechanism, ease semantics, and a timing warning, in that order. Every sentence contributes something an agent could not get from the schema. It runs slightly long, with the 'which is what makes a move look intentional' clause repeating the earlier 'read as deliberate' framing.

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 output schema and no annotations exist, so the description is the only source of behavior, and it covers mechanism, timing, and enum values well. The gap is the undocumented required inputs (axis identity and target value), which an agent needs before it can call this 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only does so for the optional parameters: it supplies the full ease enum (linear, in_out, out, in) with semantics for in_out, and explains seconds as both duration and wait time. The two REQUIRED parameters, axis and to, get no semantics at all — no valid axis names, no value units or range.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Move an axis smoothly to a value over a chosen duration.' An agent immediately knows this is a timed, interpolated motion primitive rather than an instant jump. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like go_to or nudge, which would have made the distinction airtight.

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?

Explicit positive guidance: 'Use this for any move that should read as deliberate: a slow pan across a scene, a gradual push in.' That is a clear selection criterion with concrete examples. There is no negative guidance naming an alternative (e.g. 'for instant repositioning use go_to'), so an agent must infer the counterpart from sibling names.

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