obsbot_tail2_sleep

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses physical motion (gimbal stowed face-down at ~84–89° pitch), which services stop (NDI/SRT/RTSP and /camera/test/status), which stay alive (HTTP/WS server), the polling behavior until power_on reads false, and the expected 3–6s duration. This is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure an agent needs before invoking a state-changing hardware call.

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-loaded with the action name and endpoint, then layered with the disambiguation, side effects, and timing in a logical order. It is dense but nearly every clause carries operational value; the trailing 'Hardware-verified 2026-11-03' is a credibility note with marginal utility.

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 one-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what changes, what breaks, what survives, how long it takes, and how to reverse it. The only real gap is the undocumented camera parameter, which is a schema-level rather than description-level omission.

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?

The single 'camera' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it — no hint whether it is a device name, index, or IP, nor whether it can be omitted given required-parameters is 0. The schema coverage gap is left entirely uncompensated.

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 ('Put a Tail 2 to sleep') and immediately anchors it to the underlying endpoint. It distinguishes itself from the sibling obsbot_tail2_wake by framing sleep as the suspend side of a pair that wake resumes.

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?

Clarifies the crucial usage distinction — this is a hibernate-style suspend, not a hard power cut, and the camera can be resumed over the network via obsbot_tail2_wake. It names the complementary tool and the condition under which the camera remains reachable, though it does not spell out explicit 'do not use when...' exclusions.

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