add_directional_movement

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral aspects. It only states the binding action without explaining side effects, whether existing bindings are overridden, the meaning of collision_policy, or any potential errors. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a mutation 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?

The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the primary action. It avoids verbosity, but its brevity comes at the cost of important details. It is appropriately concise for the information it conveys, though it could have added contextual remarks without becoming bloated.

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 tool has two parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, but the description is minimal. It does not explain return values (though the output schema may cover that), nor does it offer enough context about when to use this tool, how it interacts with existing actor configurations, or the behavioral meaning of collision_policy. The presence of many sibling tools increases the need for richer contextual guidance, which is absent.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds almost no meaning to the parameters. It names 'ACTION1-4' and 'movement', but does not clarify the role of actor_id or collision_policy. The collision_policy parameter is completely opaque, and the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool's action: binding ACTION1-4 to directional movements for an actor. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the purpose is distinguishable from sibling tools like add_rule or update_actor. However, it does not explicitly mention the optional collision_policy parameter, leaving some ambiguity about the full scope.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate. The only implicit hint is the directional movement focus, but this is not sufficient guidance for an AI agent.

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