Record a kick distance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the write-but-safe profile is covered. The description is consistent with these and adds the triggering scenario, but says nothing about repeat calls, overwriting, or persistence semantics beyond the annotations.

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?

A single sentence with the action front-loaded and the context trailing as an example. No filler, though the phrasing is slightly informal ('someone measured').

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 simple two-parameter write tool with annotations and no output schema, the core is present. It still leaves open what happens on repeated saves and gives no parameter guidance, which a recording tool should ideally clarify.

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%: distance_cm carries a schema description, but strength (an enum) is undocumented there. The description adds no information about either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap; the self-evident soft/medium/hard values are the only reason this isn't a 1.

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 ('Save') and resource ('kick distance'), so an agent knows this persists a measurement rather than performing a kick. It references test_kick as the source scenario, giving some separation from siblings like kick and test_kick, though it doesn't fully distinguish itself from other recording tools.

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 example 'after test_kick lost sight of the ball' gives one concrete trigger scenario, which implies when to use it. However, there is no explicit statement of when not to use it, nor a named alternative for other recording paths.

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