pad_stick

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 the single most important behavioral trap: without hold_ms the stick stays deflected (persistent state), with it the stick recenters. That is meaningful context an agent cannot get from the schema. It stops short of explaining how this state interacts with pad_center/pad_reset or whether the deflection persists across other tool calls.

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 with zero filler; the core action and coordinate convention come first, then the conditional hold behavior. Nothing is repeated from the schema except the range, which reinforces rather than wastes.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and the stateful-vs-recentering distinction, which is the essential part. It omits what the tool returns and how the persistent deflection relates to the existing pad_reset/pad_center siblings, which matters given the deliberate statefulness it advertises.

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 partly does: x/y are described as percent with a -100..100 range, and hold_ms gets real semantics (recenter after the given duration) plus its 0-5000 bounds in schema. The 'side' parameter is never mentioned, though the left/right enum is self-explanatory.

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+resource ("Move an analog stick") and pins down units and range (x/y in percent, -100..100), which distinguishes it from the discrete pad_down/pad_up/pad_press siblings. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is implicit 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 hold_ms sentence does give a usable rule for choosing between the two invocation modes (hold vs. persistent deflection), which is real usage guidance. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over pad_down, pad_up, pad_trigger, pad_center, or pad_reset, so the sibling-selection decision is left to inference.

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