obsbot_tail2_ai_track

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it warns that active tracking owns the gimbal, that manual moves fight it, that a recenter can drop tracking to none, and that mode strings were verified against firmware 7.2.13.1. This is exactly the kind of stateful side-effect disclosure an agent needs 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?

Front-loaded with the primary action and the disabled-case first, then the enabled/mode detail, then a NOTE block for the operational caveat. Dense but every clause adds information; the firmware-verification sentence is useful provenance rather than filler.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone; it covers on/off behavior, mode selection, side effects, and firmware provenance well. The only material gap is the unexplained 'camera' parameter, which matters if multiple devices are targeted.

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 'enabled' and the 'mode' default and categorizes the enum families (single/group human, animal, object), but it never explains the 'camera' parameter at all, leaving one of three params undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

Starts with a concrete verb+resource pair ('Enable or disable a Tail 2's AI tracking') and immediately contrasts the enabled:true/false semantics. The note about the gimbal being owned by tracking implicitly separates this tool from obsbot_tail2_recenter and manual gimbal moves.

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?

Clearly states what enabled:false does ('stops tracking, mode none') and what enabled:true does, including the default mode and the available mode families. It lacks an explicit 'use X instead when...' routing to siblings like obsbot_tail2_track_target, but the recenter interaction gives practical context.

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