Rotate Single Drum

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that calibration is needed but fails to mention whether the tower must be connected, if rotation is instantaneous or takes time, what side effects occur (e.g., does it move other drums?), or error handling. The lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 very concise at one sentence, front-loaded with the core action and result. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate prerequisite sentence) but currently presents the key information without waste.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, simple enums, no output schema), the description should cover return values or confirmation of success. It does not mention what the tool returns (if anything) or prerequisites beyond calibration, leaving the agent underinformed about the full context of invocation.

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?

The input schema provides clear descriptions for all three parameters (drum, position, playSound) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema. Per guidelines, with high schema coverage the baseline is 3, which is appropriate here.

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 action (rotate) and resource (single drum) with a specific outcome (to a specified position). It also notes a prerequisite (calibration). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'tower_rotate' or 'tower_random_rotate', so it misses the highest mark.

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 mentions a requirement ('Requires calibration') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tower_rotate' (which may rotate multiple drums) or 'tower_random_rotate'. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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