create_lidar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action. It does not disclose what happens if a sensor already exists at prim_path, whether an active stage is required, or how config interacts with the generic parameters (precedence, mutual exclusion, or override behavior) — critical unknowns for a 14-parameter mutation tool.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded and each parameter is documented on a single readable line. Some phrasing repeats ("in degrees", "Generic sensor"), but given zero schema coverage those repetitions are functional, not 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a complex 14-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the definition still has gaps: the config-versus-generic relationship is unresolved, prerequisites (e.g., an open stage) are unstated, and two parameters are undocumented. It covers the parameter vocabulary well but not the operational context.

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, and it does: it adds units (degrees, meters, Hz), formats ([x,y,z], [rx,ry,rz]), a range constraint (1-100 Hz), and concrete preset examples (Example_Rotary, OS1) for 12 of the 14 parameters. It misses command_id and idempotency_key, and could clarify which parameters apply in preset mode versus generic mode.

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?

"Add a lidar sensor to the scene" is a specific verb+resource+location and clearly distinct from siblings like create_camera, get_lidar_config, or delete_sensor. However, the description never explicitly names or contrasts siblings, so differentiation is inherent in the resource 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_camera, get_lidar_config, or get_lidar_point_cloud, and no exclusions are given. The only implied usage signal is the internal preset-vs-generic parameter split, which hints at two configuration modes but does not state when to choose one.

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