obsbot_tail2_preset_save

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that save OVERWRITES an occupied slot, that there is no create-once behavior, that no explicit-pose write exists in this API, and that a slot always captures the current pose. These are exactly the mutation semantics an agent needs before calling.

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 core instruction and the overwrite warning are front-loaded and useful, and the sentence structure is tight. The trailing provenance noise ('measured 2026-09-26; TAIL2-PROTOCOL.md §3', 'Hardware-verified 2026-09-26') earns little for an invoking agent.

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 3-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the behavior story is essentially complete — overwrite semantics, current-pose capture, and preconditions are all covered. The one gap is the unexplained 'camera' parameter, which is left to inference.

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. It adds real value for two params — slot range 1–3 and the name default of P1/P2/P3, which the schema does not state — but never explains the 'camera' parameter at all, leaving one of three parameters undocumented in both places.

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 ('Save a Tail 2's CURRENT live pose into a slot') and pins the scope to slots 1–3, immediately separating it from siblings like obsbot_tail2_preset_recall, preset_rename, and preset_delete. An agent can tell exactly which preset operation this is without opening the 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 an explicit prerequisite sequence ('aim the camera first (via tracking, a recall, or physically), then save') and notes that deleting first is unnecessary, which prevents a plausible wrong workflow. It stops short of naming a sibling tool as the alternative path, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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