obsbot_tail2_focus_point

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden, and it delivers real traits beyond the schema: the focus-mode dependency (only effective in afc/afs), the fallback tool for mf, and the read-write duality of a bare vs. populated call. It does not cover permissions, error behavior, or the return payload, so it stops short of a 5.

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-loads the purpose and packs mode constraints and coordinate semantics into a few dense sentences with no filler. It is information-dense rather than padded, though the coordinate-conversion tail makes it slightly heavy for a single read.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, mode gating, alternatives, and coordinate semantics well, plus the bare-call read behavior. The only meaningful gap is the camera parameter's meaning, but overall it is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for x/y: normalized 0.01-0.99, top-left at ~0,0, and a concrete conversion recipe (divide snapshot pixel by frameWidth/frameHeight). The camera parameter is left unexplained, so it is not fully complete.

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 concrete verb and resource: 'move the focus window to a normalized frame coordinate AND start a point focus there.' It goes further by distinguishing itself from the sibling obsbot_tail2_focus, which is used in mf mode, so an agent can route correctly without opening either 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?

Explicit about when it applies (afc/afs focus modes only), when to use the alternative (in mf the motor position is the tool obsbot_tail2_focus), and the no-arg behavior (bare call reads the current window). All three selection conditions are spelled out.

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