addBehavior

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that behaviors run continuously until removed, which is useful behavioral context. However, it omits details like performance impact, error conditions, or whether this requires specific permissions, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise list of behavior types with brief explanations. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context on purpose and parameters. However, it lacks details on return values or error handling, which could be important for an agent invoking this tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing and briefly explaining the behavior types (spin, bob, orbit, lookAt, pulse), which helps interpret the 'type' parameter and 'params' object beyond the schema's technical details.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('attach') and resource ('continuous frame-tick behavior to an object'), specifying it runs every frame until removed. It distinguishes from siblings like 'animateObject' by focusing on continuous behaviors rather than one-time animations, and from 'removeBehavior' as its inverse.

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?

The description implies usage for attaching continuous behaviors, with context from sibling tools suggesting alternatives like 'animateObject' for discrete animations. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct naming of alternatives, such as not using this for one-time effects.

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