Shove the duck

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

Annotations already indicate a non-readonly, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: velocity is in m/s with a max of 2.0, direction is world-frame, and angle_deg is randomly chosen when omitted. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action, then covers the mechanism, constraints, and purpose. Every clause adds useful information with no repetition or filler.

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?

Given the low parameter count and existing annotations, the description covers the core behavior, bounds, and purpose. The output schema exists, so return value explanation is unnecessary. It could be slightly more complete with angle convention details, but it is sufficient for calling correctly.

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 carry parameter meaning. It does: magnitude is velocity in m/s capped at 2.0, and angle_deg defines a world-frame direction that becomes random when omitted. Minor ambiguity remains about the reference axis for angle_deg, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 the operation: 'Shove the duck' sets trunk velocity, naming the resource (duck/trunk), the action (set velocity), and the parameterized behavior. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as duck_drive or duck_trick, so it falls short of a 5.

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 use case is implied by 'Tests push recovery,' which tells the agent this is for simulating a push and checking recovery. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives like duck_drive or duck_trick, and no exclusions are given.

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