rock

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

The description says the tool 'toggles' state, which directly conflicts with the supplied idempotentHint=true: a toggle called twice returns to the original state, whereas an idempotent operation leaves state unchanged on repeat calls. An agent trusting the annotation could call it twice expecting no additional effect and instead stop the animation. No other behavioral context (scope of the animation, persistence, interaction with other view commands) is provided.

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?

Four words, front-loaded with the verb and zero filler. The terseness is efficient, though it edges toward under-specification rather than optimal structure.

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 is trivial (no params, output schema present, annotations present), so the description covers the minimum needed to know what it does. It is still incomplete for a viewer-state tool sitting among many motion siblings, since it never states that it affects the live viewport or how it relates to 'turntable'/'turn'/'mplay'.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to convey; the schema is empty and fully specified. Baseline 4 applies since the description cannot add anything about arguments that do not exist.

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 names a specific action and effect ('toggles a rocking animation'), which is more informative than a bare name restatement and is distinguishable from unrelated siblings like 'fetch_structure'. However, it does not differentiate itself from related camera-motion siblings such as 'turntable', 'turn', or 'move', so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which animation tool to pick.

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: nothing says whether this applies to the current viewport, whether it can run concurrently with other animations (e.g. 'mplay', 'turntable'), or when one should prefer 'turn'/'move' instead. The only implied usage is that calling it starts or stops the rock.

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