move_joints

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

Goes meaningfully beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false) by disclosing atomicity ('otherwise nothing moves'), partial-update semantics ('joints not listed stay in place'), and an external precondition (limits live in config.json). It does not state what feedback or confirmation the caller receives after a successful move.

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?

Five short clauses, front-loaded with the core action and units, then example, defaults, constraint, and a safety exclusion. No repetition and nothing wasted.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with a free-form object parameter and no output schema, the description covers units, partial-update behavior, atomic failure, and a safety precondition. Only the post-call feedback/success signal is unaddressed.

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% and the single 'targets' param is an open-ended nested object, so the description must carry the load — and it does: keys are joint names, values are degrees with gripper 0-100, a concrete example is given, unlisted joints are untouched, and every value must fall inside config.json limits. The one gap is that the agent cannot know those limits from the description itself.

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 plus the operating mode: move one or more joints to ABSOLUTE positions, in degrees, with gripper on a 0-100 scale. The 'absolute' qualifier implicitly separates it from the near-named sibling move_joint_by (relative), but no sibling is named explicitly, 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?

Provides a clear when-not ('Do not use if work area is obstructed') and the absolute-vs-incremental framing that distinguishes it from move_joint_by. It still never names move_joint_by or move_to_pose as the alternative for a given situation, so routing is left partly to inference.

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