fijar_orientacion

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

The description discloses that it sets orientation with Euler angles but not its effect on the simulation state, possible errors (e.g., object not found), or return values. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, yet it remains minimal and does not cover side effects or preconditions beyond the basic action.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the key purpose. No redundant words or filler; it stays to the point and is easy to parse.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It misses usage context, parameter details for 'relativo_a', and does not explain what happens on success or failure. Even though an output schema exists, the description alone is too thin for an agent to understand the full scope of the tool, especially with no annotations to assist.

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 description explains that alfa, beta, and gamma are Euler angles in radians, adding value beyond the schema that only lists them as numbers. However, it fails to explain the 'nombre' parameter (object identifier) and completely omits 'relativo_a' (reference frame), despite the schema having a default and possible implications. With 0% schema coverage, the description should explain all parameters, but it covers only part of them.

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 tool sets an object's orientation using Euler angles in radians. It uses a specific verb (fija) and resource (orientación de un objeto), distinguishing it from siblings like obtener_orientacion (get) and fijar_posicion (set position).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., obtener_orientacion for reading, fijar_posicion for position). No context or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the function name alone.

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