goto_ptz_preset

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's transparency burden is reduced. However, it adds no additional behavioral context, such as what happens if the preset does not exist, whether speed limits are enforced, or if the tool returns a confirmation. The description is adequate but does not enhance the agent's understanding of side effects 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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no superfluous words. It front-loads the verb 'Move' and immediately specifies the resource and target. Every word is earned, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description does not explain the return value or error handling. It also does not mention that presets must be pre-configured via other tools. However, with high schema coverage and annotations that declare idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description is minimally adequate but could benefit from clarifying the expected response and prerequisites.

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 100%, so all parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as default values, relationships between parameters, or valid ranges. This meets the baseline expectation for a tool with full schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Move camera') and the target ('a named PTZ preset position'), distinguishing it from related tools like 'get_ptz_presets' and 'ptz_move'. The verb 'Move' and resource 'camera' are specific, and the context of PTZ preset makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'ptz_move' or 'set_ptz_position'. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., presets must exist) or when not to use. Without explicit context, an AI agent may struggle to select the correct tool among similar PTZ operations.

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