set_human_behavior

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only adds 'with read-back,' which is useful, but it does not explain mutation semantics, idempotency, permissions, or failure behavior for a tool that updates a live entity.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise but perhaps too sparse to be complete; however, as a stubructure score, it is efficient and readable.

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 tool with 9 parameters and no annotations, this description is materially incomplete. It does not explain which settings are 'supported,' what human_path refers to, whether updates are applied immediately, or how the read-back result is returned, so an agent lacks essential context for correct invocation.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the 9 parameters, including the required human_path. Words like 'supported' and 'read-back' hint at behavior, but they do not clarify what enabled, preview, speed_mps, command_id, or navigation_areas mean in this context.

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 identifies a clear action ('Update') and a specific resource ('live Behavior Agent settings'), and adds that it performs a read-back. This provides enough clarity to distinguish it from related siblings like set_human_target or set_human_idle, though it does not explicitly name them or enumerate which settings are covered.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_human_target, set_human_idle, or set_human_look_at. The phrase 'supported ... settings' hints at constraints but gives no explicit selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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