Connect Xsens MVN mocap

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds what gets created (scaffold with ingest, mapping, tables, notes) but does not disclose deeper behavioral traits such as network side effects, dependencies on external Xsens software, or what happens to existing nodes. This meets the minimum bar but lacks extra 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that packs essential information without wasted words. It enumerates the scaffold's key components efficiently and avoids filler, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 creation tool with no output schema and 9 parameters, the description gives a solid high-level picture of what the tool does and what components are included. It does not explain return values or prerequisites, but the main purpose and feature set are clear enough for an agent to decide to invoke it. Given the lack of output schema, a bit more detail on outcomes would be better, but the overall completeness is adequate.

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 only 22%, with only name and parent_path having descriptions. The description compensates by associating key features with parameters: 'OSC/UDP/TCP ingest' maps to source_mode and receive_port, 'actor/segment mapping' to actor_count and segment_count, and 'coordinate-space notes' to coordinate_space. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it does not cover every parameter explicitly.

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 ('Create') and the specific resource ('an Xsens MVN mocap scaffold'), while listing distinguishing features such as OSC/UDP/TCP ingest, actor/segment mapping, normalized skeleton tables, and coordinate-space notes. This distinguishes it from sibling mocap tools like create_optitrack_tracking_bus or create_nuitrack_body_bus.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when an Xsens MVN mocap scaffold with specific ingest protocols and mapping capabilities is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the specificity of 'Xsens MVN' and the listed features make the usage scenario clear.

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