pixera_set_screen_pose

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses partial-update semantics ('Omitted vectors stay unchanged'), that it reads the pose back, the coordinate frame (right-handed, Y-up, metres), and a refusal condition (rotation rejected under convention='blender'). It does not cover permissions or failure behavior for a missing screen, but the key behavioral traits are present.

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?

Front-loads the action and effect in the first clause, then adds only the convention/units detail an agent needs. Two tight paragraphs with no filler, though the convention explanation is somewhat dense.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a mutation tool with no annotations the description adequately covers frame, units, partial-update behavior, and the blend-convention edge case; only the screen_name identity requirement is left implicit.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for most parameters: units for position (m) and rotation (deg), the meaning of the convention parameter and its blender conversion formula, and the fact that omitted vectors are left unchanged. Only screen_name is left entirely to the schema.

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?

Specific verb ('Set') plus resource ('screen pose') with the exact manipulable fields (position [x,y,z] m, rotation [x,y,z] deg, scale). Distinguishable from the nearby sibling pixera_get_projector_pose, which targets projectors and reads rather than sets.

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 explains the coordinate convention mode and the partial-update rule, but never states when to reach for this tool versus alternatives (e.g., a get_projector_pose or listing tool). Usage is implied by the effect rather than routed explicitly.

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