cavalry_run_preset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully says the build happens in one atomic execution, but it does not disclose mutation side effects, required Cavalry state, failure behavior, idempotency, or what is returned after the rig is built.

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 wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though the extreme terseness contributes to the missing usage and parameter details elsewhere.

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?

This is a complex mutation tool with a large enum, a free-form nested params object, no annotations, and no output schema. One sentence stating that it builds a parameterized rig is not enough to tell an agent how to invoke it correctly or what to expect from the atomic execution.

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, but it only says the rig is 'parameterized'. It does not explain the 118-value name enum, what the free-form params object can contain, how params override preset defaults, or whether any params are required beyond name.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Build a parameterized procedural motion rig' in 'one atomic Cavalry execution'. It is clear what the tool does and implies preset-driven rig creation, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from cavalry_run_script or cavalry_inspect.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling tools cavalry_run_script or cavalry_inspect. The agent is left to infer that this tool should be chosen when a named preset is desired rather than a custom script.

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