Set Pan/Tilt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses that ClearSelection is sent (selection changes) but programmer values are never cleared, that execution stops at the first rejected command, that a fixture lacking Pan/Tilt is a mismatch not a success, and that it is serialised against other mutations. This is exactly the side-effect and failure-mode disclosure an 8-param mutation tool 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?

Front-loaded with purpose and dense but largely non-redundant; nearly every clause carries behavioural or targeting information. It is a single long paragraph with some overlap against the schema descriptions (e.g., use_selection/add_to_selection), which costs it the top mark.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 8 parameters, the description covers everything an agent needs: units, targeting rules, selection side effects, verification/readback semantics, and failure handling. There is no significant gap left for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what the `unit` value actually dispatches (`Attribute "Pan" At Absolute Physical <v>` vs `... At Absolute Percent <v>`) and the ordering (Pan first, then Tilt). It reinforces rather than merely repeats the parameter docs.

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?

States a specific verb (Set) and resource (Pan and/or Tilt in the programmer) with explicit scope. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like gma3_set_attribute or gma3_set_color without opening a schema, since the title and first clause pin it to pan/tilt positioning.

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?

Gives clear operational context: target must be either `fixtures` or `use_selection: true`, values are set in the programmer, and pre-check/verify conditions are explained. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives (e.g., when to prefer gma3_set_attribute for non-pan/tilt), so it is clear context without explicit routing.

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