move_to

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two meaningful traits: movement is pathfound (not instantaneous/teleport) and the call is asynchronous, returning an action ID. It says nothing about failure modes, what happens if the target is unreachable, whether the action is cancellable, or how the timeout interacts with the walk. That is useful but thin for an unannotated 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core mechanism and then the key constraint. Nothing is padded, though the extreme terseness leaves obvious gaps that a clause or two could have closed without bloat.

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 the description still leaves the agent unequipped: five parameters at 0% coverage, no annotations, and no statement of prerequisites or post-call workflow. For a multi-parameter asynchronous movement action, this is substantially under-specified.

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% across five parameters (x, y, within, surface, timeout), and the description explains none of them. Units (tiles?), what "within" tolerance means, what "surface" selects, and what "timeout" bounds are all left undocumented. The description adds zero meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

"Walk with the engine pathfinder" conveys that the agent moves under engine pathfinding rather than teleporting, which is a real verb+mechanism. But it never states that the tool moves the agent to a target coordinate, so the resource/destination is only implied by the parameter names. It also does not differentiate itself from siblings like create_plan/apply_plan that could also cause movement.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named; the only usable cue is "Returns an action ID," which hints the call is asynchronous. An agent must infer on its own that it should follow up with get_action_status or cancel_action. No exclusions or preconditions (e.g., reachability) are given.

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