obsbot_tail2_roll_bias

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it discloses the ±90 clamp, that this is a write that can be read back, and that hardware behavior was verified. It stops short of saying whether the trim persists across sessions, requires a connected/powered camera, or how failure is reported.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences: purpose and semantics come first, then the hardware-verification note. The dated verification stamp is borderline noise but conveys trustworthiness and costs little.

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 simple two-parameter setter with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers intent, units, range, and readback verification. It leaves the `camera` selector and any persistence/state caveats unexplained, which is a real gap at 0% schema coverage.

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 does explain the required `angle` parameter with units and semantics (roll trim, ±90 clamp), but the optional `camera` parameter is left entirely undefined, and the clamp value merely duplicates the schema's minimum/maximum.

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 (Set) plus resource (Tail 2's roll trim angle) and the unit (degrees), and immediately disambiguates the intent as horizon correction vs. deliberate tilt. The contrast with the Tiny 2's inert roll slot further separates it from superficially similar siblings like obsbot_tail2_image_adjust or gimbal_move.

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?

It implies the use case (horizon correction / deliberate tilt) and flags that this actually moves the image, but never says when to prefer it over siblings such as obsbot_tail2_gimbal_move, recenter, or image_adjust. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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