set_mobile_base_velocity

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses persistence ('Targets persist until replaced'), the timeline requirement, the need for an explicit stop, and differential validation behavior. It does not cover every side effect, such as whether a previous target is immediately replaced, but it is well above the no-annotation baseline.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler: a purpose statement followed by the two most important operational cautions. The key constraints are front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Captures the non-obvious failure modes an agent would otherwise hit: paused timeline, persistent targets, and lateral-velocity rejection. It is not fully complete for a 7-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, since parameter semantics and valid profile selection are not fully described, but it provides enough context for correct invocation in most cases.

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. It partially does by clarifying differential vs. holonomic behavior and the lateral-velocity constraint, and the remaining velocity parameters are largely self-explanatory from their names. However, prim_path, command_id, and idempotency_key are left entirely to inference, and no valid profile values or units are enumerated.

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: 'Apply a profiled differential or holonomic base velocity target.' This clearly separates it from sibling motion tools like execute_trajectory and set_joint_positions, and the explicit mention of stop_mobile_base underscores what it is not.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions: the timeline must be playing for a non-zero command, targets persist until replaced, and stop_mobile_base should always be called at the end of motion. It also warns that differential profiles reject non-zero lateral velocity. It stops short of comparing against other motion alternatives like trajectory execution, but the provided guidance is actionable.

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