Go to a spot

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

Annotations only give readOnly=false, destructive=true, openWorld=false; the description adds substantial context they don't carry: obstacle avoidance, termination accuracy (within a few cm), the origin used for coordinates, and an explicit refusal rule (off-field or within 10 cm of walls). It does not, however, explain what the destructiveHint refers to or what happens on refusal (error vs. no-op).

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?

Compact, front-loaded with the primary action and destination, then the optional heading and the refusal constraint. The parenthetical about the coordinate origin is slightly tangled but every clause carries information.

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 4-parameter motion tool with no output schema, the description covers origin, precision, heading behaviour and rejection conditions, but leaves speed_percent undefined and does not say whether a failed/refused drive raises an error or returns a partial result. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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. It usefully defines the coordinate frame for x_mm/y_mm and explains heading_deg semantics (optional, 0 = up the field, applied at the end), but speed_percent is never mentioned and its 5–100 range/default of 40 is left entirely to the bare schema.

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 (Drive) and a specific destination resource (a spot at field mm coordinates), plus the movement behaviour (obstacle avoidance, few-cm accuracy). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like move, turn, turn_to_heading and explore_arena without opening any schema.

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?

The description clarifies the coordinate frame ('field mm when a field is chosen in the control panel, otherwise from where the robot connected'), which is genuine usage context, but it never names an alternative tool or states when to prefer go_to over move/approach_object/explore_arena. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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