obsbot_tail2_gimbal_speed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses that motion is continuous until stopped, that this tool always stops it, the auto-stop duration (default 500ms, max 5000ms), the ±150 vs ±178 firmware range, the empirical calibration (~20 command ≈ 7.9°/s), and the counter-intuitive sign convention where positive yaw decreases recorded yaw. That is unusually rich behavioral context.

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?

It is dense but front-loaded: the core behavior and defaults come first, then the API primitive, then the calibration and the tracking caveat. Every sentence carries information; the measured °/s figure and the yaw convention are the only slightly extraneous extras, but both are actionable.

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, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description supplies nearly everything an agent needs to call this safely and correctly. The one gap is the undocumented 'camera' selector, which an agent cannot disambiguate from the description alone.

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 and does so well for four of five parameters: sign-as-direction and magnitude-as-speed for yaw/pitch/roll, the ±150 cap, and the durationMs default (500) that does not even appear in the schema. It says nothing about the 'camera' parameter, leaving one required meaning 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+resource ('jog the Tail 2's gimbal') and immediately qualifies the semantics as velocity-based rather than absolute, naming the underlying primitive (POST ptz/gimbalcontrol). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting there is no absolute move endpoint, so an agent can tell it apart from obsbot_tail2_gimbal_move/recenter 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?

Gives a clear prerequisite — 'Disable AI tracking first or it will fight the move' — and explains the continuous-motion model with the automatic stop. However, it never names the alternative sibling tools (obsbot_tail2_gimbal_move, obsbot_tail2_recenter) or states when a discrete move is preferable to a jog.

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