Stage Gallery Add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the wrist-thumbnail side effect, the delayed panel opening, the emitted panel_shown event, and the {n} reply. It still omits failure modes and whether an add is reversible or de-duplicated.

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-loads the core action, then packs the URL format, open behavior, reply shape, and emitted event into a tight, information-dense passage with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists and the reply/event are still described, so return coverage is fine. But for a mutation tool with 0% parameter description coverage, the unexplained `scene` parameter and absent error/permission behavior leave gaps an agent must guess at.

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 gives a concrete url format example and explains open=True, but the required `scene` parameter is only implied via the URL template and never defined by itself.

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 concrete verb+resource: add a picture (by URL) to the person's in-VR gallery and set it as the wrist thumbnail. The side effect (thumbnail) and page command (gallery_add) make the action unambiguous, though it never names a sibling to contrast with.

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 explains the conditional behavior of open=True (opens the panel after 600 ms), which is useful usage context, but never says when to choose this over stage_capture, stage_view_snapshot, or stage_panel_show, nor any preconditions.

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