obsbot_tail2_portrait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: ~1.5s motion time, polling of the status push, the settled:false return signal, the measured hazard that writes can be silently dropped while the motor moves, and a retry remedy. Hardware-verified framing gives the agent confidence in the reported behavior.

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 action and the enable semantics, then layers timing, failure mode, and retry guidance. Every sentence adds operative information with no 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?

No output schema exists, and the description still explains the meaningful return value (settled:false) and what to do about it. Combined with the timing and failure-mode detail, an agent has everything needed to call and recover from this tool.

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% for 2 parameters, so the description must compensate. It fully defines enable (portrait vs landscape) but leaves the camera parameter unaddressed, relying on the shared device-selection convention across sibling tools.

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 ('Rotate a Tail 2's barrel 90°'), plus the two framing outcomes tied to the enable boolean. It also explicitly differentiates from siblings by noting this is a motorized rotation no Tiny 2 has, so the agent can rule out look-alike gimbal tools.

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 clear conditional guidance: enable for portrait framing, disable to return to landscape, and adds a retry rule when settled stays false. No sibling competes for this action, so an explicit 'use X instead' clause isn't needed, though the description never states prerequisites such as device selection.

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