avatar_walk_to

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=true, openWorld=true), yet the description adds a genuinely important behavioral fact not in the annotations: the call is not synchronous success, so the agent must poll avatar_movement_status and verify. It omits whether an in-progress walk is cancelled or whether movement can fail outright.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the essential caveat. Nothing redundant; every clause carries information.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description covers the action, the follow-up verification step, and the success caveat, but leaves key behaviors unexplained: effect on an existing walk, meaning of allow_flying and stop_distance, and whether failure is signalled at call time.

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 three parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It clarifies that global_position is a GLOBAL (not local) coordinate, which is meaningful next to local_mesh tools, but allow_flying and stop_distance are never mentioned in either the schema or the 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?

The description gives a specific verb (walk) and resource (avatar) plus the target frame ('GLOBAL coordinates'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like avatar_stop, avatar_position, and local_mesh_* tools. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

It supplies real usage context: poll avatar_movement_status and verify position, and explicitly warns that a return 'is not pathfinding success'. That is a clear directive about what to do after calling. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g. while already walking).

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