Choose which robot to control

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

Annotations mark this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it changes the active target for all other tools, motion is locked per robot, and a human confirmation is expected before enable_motion. It does not describe failure modes or what happens to the previously selected robot.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the prerequisite warning follows logically. No filler, though the phrasing is slightly indirect.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations on parameters, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers purpose and the enable_motion prerequisite but leaves the meaning and format of 'name' entirely unexplained. Adequate but with a clear gap for a tool whose only input is ambiguous.

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 0% and the single 'name' parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description only implies the name identifies another player's robot; it never states the format, whether it is a player name, team name, or robot ID. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: making another player's robot the target that tools and the control panel act on. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from nearby siblings like connect_robot or add_player.

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 gives clear sequencing context: motion starts locked on each robot, so the user should confirm the robot is on the floor before calling enable_motion. This tells the agent when this tool fits into the workflow, but it offers no explicit when-not conditions or direct alternatives.

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