Move

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the call blocks until motion completes, and it terminates early on a bump. It does not explain why the operation is destructive or what happens on abort, but the blocking and collision behavior are valuable disclosures.

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?

Two short sentences, both front-loaded with the core action and then the blocking/abort behavior. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 three-parameter motion tool with no output schema, the description covers the two critical unknowns an agent must know before calling: that it blocks and that it can abort on contact. The remaining gap is what the call reports back (success vs. bump-abort), which the absence of an output schema leaves unaddressed.

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 100%, so distance_mm, direction_deg, and speed_percent are fully documented in the schema, including the direction convention and speed scaling. The description only echoes 'a set distance in any direction' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource: 'Drive a set distance in any direction, then stop.' That is unambiguous and distinguishes it from rotational siblings like turn and turn_to_heading, and from goal-oriented siblings like go_to or approach_object, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the text when to use this primitive versus go_to, approach_object, or explore_arena; the collision-abort sentence is behavioral, not usage guidance.

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