Kick

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real beyond-annotation context: the kick fires at whatever is held, balls bounce and can rebound toward the robot, and backing away is specifically to keep the magnet from recapturing a returning ball. That explains the destructive/motion behavior rather than restating it.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then safety, then the verification tool. Every sentence carries information; there is no filler or repetition.

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 mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers the action, the recoil behavior, and the verification step. It stops short of saying what happens if the kicker holds nothing or how failures surface, which is a minor gap.

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 50%, and the described parameter (back_away_mm) already carries its own schema description. The description only adds meaning for the 'soft' enum value, saying nothing about 'medium' or 'hard', so it partially compensates for the undocumented strength enum but not fully.

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 gives a specific verb and mechanism: firing the kicker at whatever it is holding, plus the 'soft' variant for gentle pushes/places. It is clear what the tool does, but it never differentiates itself from the many action-oriented kick siblings (shoot_at_goal, pass_ball, test_kick), leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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?

It offers practical preconditions (aim at open space, ensure no one is in the way) and names look() as the way to verify the kicker is holding something. However, it gives no guidance on when to use kick versus shoot_at_goal or pass_ball, so the routing decision among kick siblings is left unresolved.

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