client_move

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses axis directions, coordinate ranges, clamping behavior, a concrete calibration example (client_move(0,1,6) = 24m walk), stick-rest-on-return semantics including failure paths, and the side effect of attaching a virtual controller visible to the game. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure.

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 purpose, then packs essential behavioral details, units, side effects, and failure safety into a compact text. Every sentence adds substantive information; none are filler.

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?

For a movement tool with no annotations and an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs: effect, coordinate semantics, calibration, device state on return, failure behavior, and integration with client_stop. No critical operational context is missing.

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 define all three parameters. It does: x positive to the right, y positive forward, both clamped to [-1,1], and the example implies seconds is a duration. All parameters are meaningfully explained beyond their bare names.

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 action ('Walk the character with the left stick') and resource (character), and explicitly distinguishes itself as the only tract that moves the character and the only analog movement option among many siblings. Clear verb, resource, and differentiation.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: this is the only tool that moves the character at all, and the only analog one, so 'walking rather than sprinting' is testable here and nowhere else. It also mentions `client_stop` as the companion to unplug the virtual controller, giving clear context on related tools.

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