Do a trick

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

The description discloses important physical side effects beyond the annotations, including that ground_pick touches the beak to the floor, kicks stage the ball at the indicated foot first, and roulade usually leaves the duck down because no stand-up policy ships yet. It also reveals that episodic tricks automatically hand control back to standing after a few seconds, which is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs.

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 front-loaded with the core verb and immediately lists options in a scannable inline list. Every clause earns its place: the parentheticals clarify physical behavior, and the trailing note explains an important edge case rather than padding.

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?

The tool has one required parameter and an output schema, so the description need not document return values. It covers the accepted value set, per-value semantics, post-trick state, a required follow-up action, and automatic control handback, leaving no practical gap for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke the tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only a bare string 'name' in the schema, the description carries full responsibility for parameter meaning. It compensates completely by listing every accepted value and explaining the effect of each, including the roulade/duck_reset caveat.

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 opens with 'Trigger a trick' and enumerates every valid trick value ('sit', 'stand', 'ground_pick', 'kick_left'/'kick_right', 'roulade'), making the operation specific and unambiguous. This clearly separates it from the sibling tools, which are state, drive, push, stop, look, camera, and reset operations.

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 intended trigger action is clear, and the description gives sequencing advice ('follow with duck_reset' after roulade) plus automatic return-to-standing behavior. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over sibling alternatives such as duck_drive or duck_push, so usage guidance is mostly implied rather than stated.

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