nina_mount_sync

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

No annotations exist, so description bears full burden. It discloses core behavior (updates internal position without physical movement) and purpose. Omits potential side effects like required tracking state, but sufficient for basic usage.

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 sentences, no filler. First sentence front-loads action and constraints, second provides typical use case. Every part adds value.

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 no output schema and simple parameter set, description covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and behavioral nuance. Missing details like return status or prerequisites, but acceptable for a sync operation.

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 has 0% parameter descriptions, but description adds critical meaning: units (RA in hours, Dec in degrees) and coordinate system (J2000). This compensates for schema gaps and enables correct invocation.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Sync' and resource 'mount's internal position' with target coordinates. It clearly distinguishes from sibling like nina_mount_slew by noting 'without moving it'.

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?

Explicitly states use case: correcting pointing model drift after plate solve. Implicitly excludes use for moving mount by clarifying 'without moving it'. No explicit alternatives but sibling list provides context.

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