tool_grip_calibrate

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the exact properties being modified (Tool.Grip and RightGripAttachment), which is useful. However, it does not explain side effects, whether changes persist, whether the attachment is created if missing, or whether any prerequisites exist.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that conveys category, action, affected properties, purpose, and concrete examples without wasted words. Every part earns its place.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and affected properties, but it omits behavioral details like persistence, side effects, and return value. The input schema is rich, which compensates somewhat, but the description alone is not fully complete for safe 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the preset concept with orientation examples, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema for offset or anglesDeg. It is adequate but does not elevate understanding of the parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Calibrates') and names the exact resources affected: 'Tool.Grip and RightGripAttachment'. It also gives concrete orientation examples like 'Sword upright' and 'Gun aim forward', which clearly distinguishes this purpose-built tool from generic property-editing siblings like property_set or rig_pose_and_animate.

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 gives a clear usage context: weapons and equippable tools where correct in-hand orientation matters. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the scoping to grip calibration is strong enough for an agent to recognize when to select this tool.

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