invert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the core behavioral trait: both the goal and the path are mutated, and the direction is reversed. It is silent on reversibility (does a second call restore the original goal?), persistence, and any permissions, which are real gaps for a state-mutating tool.

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?

One short sentence with the action front-loaded and the clarifying gloss right behind it. No filler, no 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?

The output schema covers return values and there are no parameters to document, so the remaining need is behavioral. For a mutation of world navigation state with no annotations, the description is thin on reversibility and side effects, which leaves a gap an agent could hit.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline of 4 applies.

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 (invert) and its resources (goal and path), with a parenthetical that disambiguates the intent as running away from the goal. This is clear enough that an agent understands the effect without opening anything else, though it does not distinguish itself from goal/path siblings such as 'thisway' or 'goal_coordinates'.

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 parenthetical 'run away from goal' implies the situation in which it applies, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., 'thisway' or 'clear_goal') for when the agent wants a different kind of goal change. Usage must be inferred.

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