Stage Person Goto

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: walk mode is turned off first on desktop, VR places instantly on a floor detected 30cm below, yaw-only facing, seconds ignored in VR, and explicit error cases (missing position or target). It also discloses emitted mode events, giving an agent everything it needs to predict side effects.

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 core action, then structured by platform (desktop/VR), errors, replies and events. Dense but largely earning its place; the reply/emit details partially duplicate the output schema, adding a little redundancy.

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?

Output schema exists, yet the description additionally clarifies the difference between desktop and VR payloads (including floor being nullable), which is genuinely useful. For a mutation tool with zero annotations and 0% schema coverage, nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 carry parameter meaning — and it does for position (Blender xyz), target (facing direction) and seconds (desktop flight duration, ignored in VR). Only 'scene' goes unexplained, a minor gap given three of four parameters are richly described.

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 precise verb+resource: put the person at a position facing a target, with Blender xyz semantics and the underlying page command (goto). The 'person' framing inherently distinguishes it from stage_camera_goto and similar siblings, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls just short of the top mark.

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 distinguishes desktop vs VR behavior clearly, implying context for use, but never says when to choose this over stage_camera_goto, stage_waypoint_go or stage_scene_go. Usage is implied by the scenario descriptions rather than stated as selection guidance.

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