execute_trajectory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it only reveals that the call returns immediately and is non-blocking. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., robot motion, scene changes), whether the job can be cancelled, or any rate/authorization considerations, which are all material for an execution 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word contributes the start action and the non-blocking behavior. It is concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing usage details (already penalized elsewhere).

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 an execution tool with four undocumented parameters, no annotations, and a large sibling list, the description is too sparse. The agent cannot tell whether a planned trajectory is required, what kind of job is created, or how to correlate the response with get_job_status/get_motion_status.

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 needed to clarify trajectory_id, command_id, timeout_ms, and idempotency_key. The phrase 'trajectory job' hints at trajectory_id but says nothing about the remaining three parameters, leaving the agent to guess at their meaning.

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?

Description states a clear action ('Start') and resource ('a trajectory job'), and includes a distinguishing behavior ('return immediately without blocking'). It does not name sibling tools such as plan_joint_trajectory or start_job, but the focused wording is enough to separate it from generic job tools.

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 execute_trajectory versus alternatives like start_job, plan_joint_trajectory, or cancel_motion. The non-blocking phrasing implies an async workflow, but the description never states prerequisites (e.g., a planned trajectory) or how status is checked afterward.

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