set_human_idle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the core effect (issue Idle, cancel active action) but does not mention side effects, reversibility, behavior when no action is active, preview semantics, idempotency, or what the output contains. This is a significant gap for a state-changing command.

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 filler, and it conveys the core operation efficiently. However, its brevity reflects under-specification rather than ideal completeness, though conciseness itself is handled well.

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 six-parameter tool with no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter role explanations, usage boundaries, sibling differentiation, and behavioral edge cases. The presence of an output schema helps with return expectations but does not make up for the missing conceptual 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%, and the description only loosely hints at optional facing through 'optionally facing one target.' It does not explain the required human_path, preview defaulting to true, command_id, or idempotency_key, leaving most parameter meanings undocumented in both schema and description.

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 what the tool does: cancel the active action by issuing Idle, with optional facing of a target. The resource is identifiable via the tool name and human_path parameter, and the action is distinct from sibling target/look-at/behavior tools, though no sibling is explicitly named.

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 phrase 'cancel the active action' implies when to use the tool, but there is no explicit guidance on prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it compares to alternatives such as set_human_behavior, cancel_motion, or set_human_target. The usage context is present but left to inference.

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