place_fob

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the 60 m spatial constraint and the default-to-origin behavior. However, it does not state whether placing the FOB overwrites an existing one, how coordinates relate to the world, or what response/effect to expect, leaving notable gaps.

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 only two sentences, front-loads the core action, and every sentence adds useful information. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple placement tool, the description conveys the essential placement action, the 60 m constraint, and the default origin. However, the lack of parameter semantics and mutation consequences means an agent still has to infer important details like yaw orientation and whether repeated calls replace the existing FOB. No output schema further increases the burden.

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, but it only says 'Defaults to the origin.' It does not explain what x, z, and yaw individually mean, their units, or how they interact with the 60 m square. This is a significant gap for a 3-parameter tool.

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's action: 'Place the Forward Operating Base.' It also adds a distinguishing constraint (the 60 m square) and the default origin behavior. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the generic 'place' sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 sentence 'Everything else must sit inside its 60 m square' gives clear contextual guidance: the FOB must be placed before other items and positioned so that the rest of the build fits. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intended usage context is clear.

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