obsbot_gimbal_move

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it declares sign conventions (positive yaw = camera's left, positive pitch = down), the clamp ranges, the 1:1 degree mapping, and that behavior is hardware-verified. It omits whether motion is blocking, error behavior at limits, or the meaning of the roll/camera inputs, so it is not fully complete.

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?

A single dense sentence ordered from action to semantics to limits; every clause adds information and nothing is repeated or padded.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the two required motion parameters well but leaves roll and camera unexplained, so an agent cannot confidently drive the full input surface.

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 does explain yaw and pitch semantics, including sign convention and clamp bounds, but leaves roll (defaulted) and camera completely undefined in both schema and description, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 (move) and resource (gimbal) plus the exact coordinate mode (absolute yaw/pitch in degrees). This clearly separates it from siblings like obsbot_gimbal_recenter (relative reset) and obsbot_gimbal_position (a read), which an agent can distinguish without opening a schema.

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 implies when to use it (absolute positioning) but never states when to prefer a sibling such as recenter, or that this is absolute versus relative motion. Usage is inferable from the scope statement but not explicitly guided.

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