obsbot_tail2_track_custom

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: it discloses the write transport (UDP 9999, keys 04/07/0a/06/09), the wire encoding (float32 slider/10, keys 06/09 as Auto buttons verified against horizontal_auto/vertical_auto), that readback comes from tracking_settings, and that the axis locks have no write path and are read-only. This is far beyond what structured fields supply.

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 (enable, set speeds, toggle autos), then the bare-call read behavior, then the wire-level details. Dense but each clause carries information; the protocol keys/encoding are arguably more than some callers need, but they are the tool's differentiating content.

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 6-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers writes, reads, encoding, verification, and the read-only lock caveat. The missing `camera` parameter semantics and the unstated default behavior when only some axes are passed are the remaining gaps.

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, and it largely does: it explains the pan/tilt 1-10 speed semantics, the enabled toggle, and maps the Auto toggles to specific wire keys. The only gap is the `camera` parameter, which is never mentioned anywhere in the description or schema.

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: configure the CUSTOM ('customized') tracking speed, with per-axis Pan/Tilt values 1-10 and per-axis Auto toggles. It even names the internal concept (Center's `customized` track speed), which helps distinguish it conceptually. However it never names the sibling `obsbot_tail2_track_speed` or `obsbot_ai_track_speed`, so the agent must infer the split between preset speed vs custom speed.

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?

Provides one useful usage signal: a bare call reads current state from the status push rather than writing, which tells the agent it can use this as a readback. But there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not, no mention of when to prefer `obsbot_tail2_track_speed`, and no stated prerequisites for the write path.

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