gripper_move

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the description only needs to add motion-specific behavior. It adds the useful no-force semantic, but says nothing about whether the move blocks until complete, what happens on collision or timeout, or why a simple width move is flagged destructive.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that carries the verb, the target, the unit, and the distinguishing constraint with zero filler.

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. However, for a physical-actuation tool whose annotations mark it destructive, the description leaves out blocking behavior, failure modes, and safety/collision considerations that an agent needs before invoking it.

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%: width_m's range and the optional speed_mps default are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the unit-bearing target and adds no additional meaning about units, clamping, or what happens if speed is omitted.

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 and resource (move gripper fingers) with the target quantity (opening width in meters) and the key differentiator from gripper_grasp: no grasp force applied. It does not explicitly name gripper_grasp or gripper_home, so sibling differentiation is implied 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 phrase 'without applying grasp force' implies this is the positioning-only alternative to gripper_grasp, but the description never says when to use this instead of grasp or home, nor any prerequisite such as the robot being in a valid state.

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