obsbot_tail2_preset_recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the empty-slot refusal, that gimbal axes are open-loop because the Tail 2 reports no live pose, that arrival is verified only via the zoom ratio from the status push, and the AI-tracking conflict. This is exactly the kind of operational detail an agent cannot infer.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect before the caveats. Dense but each clause adds operational value; the hardware-verification note is the only borderline sentence.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers preconditions, failure modes, and how success is observed. The only material gap is the undocumented 'camera' parameter.

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 documents the slot semantics and its 1–3 range, but the 'camera' parameter is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters unexplained in both schema and prose.

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 ('Recall a Tail 2 preset slot') with scope (1–3) and the effect ('drives the gimbal and zoom to the saved pose'). Clearly distinguishes itself from sibling preset_save/list/delete/rename without opening their schemas.

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 concrete precondition ('Disable AI tracking first or it will fight the move') and failure condition ('Refuses an empty slot'), which tell the agent when the call will succeed. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives such as preset_save or preset_list for the save/browse cases.

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