obsbot_aim_at_pixel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does so thoroughly: it reads the camera's magnification from reported state, refuses instead of aiming on uncheckable assumptions, returns clamped:true and still moves when target is out of range, refuses with ok:false for over-the-top rotations, and invalidates stale geometry if the camera was asleep. This is exceptionally transparent about side effects and failure modes.

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 long, but nearly every sentence earns its place by adding a caveat, refusal condition, or side-effect disclosure. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose. The main weakness is that it is a dense wall of text with multiple embedded clauses, which could be easier to scan with better structuring.

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 tool's complexity, the absence of an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers an impressive amount: prerequisites, refusal conditions, return flags (clamped, ok:false), and the virtual/ndi pass-through assumption. It does not specify the full shape of a successful response or explain the 'camera' parameter, so it is not fully complete, but it is close.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains x/y as pixel coordinates, emphasizes that frameWidth/frameHeight must come from the same snapshot, and describes the source enum with its default and pass-through caveat. However, the optional 'camera' parameter in the schema is never addressed, leaving one parameter under-specified.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Point the camera at a specific pixel in a frame you just captured.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling gimbal/zoom tools by targeting a pixel coordinate rather than angles, FOV, or zoom, and further differentiates itself by noting it takes no FOV/zoom argument.

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 gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: use coordinates and dimensions from the same obsbot_capture_snapshot result, declare the source, and only use virtual/ndi feeds that are unmodified pass-through. It also lists refusal conditions (AI tracking active, undecodable FOV, corrupt zoom, camera asleep, target past vertical) and tells the agent how to recover: take a fresh snapshot after wake, or tilt toward the pixel before re-aiming.

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