land

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

With no annotations provided, the description adequately discloses behavioral traits: it is rejected in readonly mode, landing enhances safety, and it returns a specific JSON object. It also recommends polling for completion, which adds useful behavioral context.

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 two sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence defines the action succinctly, and the second adds essential behavioral details and post-call advice without redundancy.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema (though context signals oddly indicate one), the description fully covers purpose, rejection condition, return value, and next steps. No gaps remain for an agent to invoke and understand the tool.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema provides no additional information. The description adds value by specifying the return format and polling guidance, which is more than the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 'Land at the current position', using a specific verb and resource scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'takeoff' and 'hold', making the action 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 explains that the tool is rejected in readonly mode and that no confirmation is needed, providing clear context for when it can be used. It also advises polling get_telemetry after use, but does not explicitly compare to other landing-related actions like 'return_to_launch'.

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