obsbot_tail2_gimbal_move

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently: it discloses the closed-loop implementation (jog, read pose ~2s, correct, up to 5 rounds, tolerance ±1.5°), expected duration (~5-15s), and refusal condition with the exact prerequisite (disable AI tracking first). This gives an agent rich behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then systematically adds implementation detail, performance expectations, and prerequisites. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant or filler content despite the length.

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 complex motion tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description provides strong contextual completeness: it explains behavior, timing, tolerance, and the critical AI-tracking prerequisite. The notable gap is the unmentioned 'camera' parameter and optionality, which leaves one of three parameters entirely unexplained.

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% for all 3 parameters. The description adds meaning for yaw and pitch (absolute degrees, pose-record convention, matching gimbal_position axes) beyond the raw numeric ranges in the schema. However, it completely omits the 'camera' parameter and does not address requiredness (0 required parameters), so it only partially compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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 and resource: 'Move the Tail 2's gimbal to an absolute yaw/pitch in degrees.' It distinguishes from siblings by clarifying the pose-record convention and that there is no move-to-angle endpoint, implying a closed-loop approach instead of the speed primitive. An agent can tell what this does and how it differs from gimbal_speed.

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?

Provides clear context: use for absolute yaw/pitch moves, and explicitly says it REFUSES while AI tracking is active, requiring obsbot_tail2_ai_track enabled:false first. However, it does not name an alternative sibling tool (e.g., gimbal_speed for relative moves) to use instead, so it stops short of full when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance.

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