Stage Trail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that the path redraws when its keys change, that VR grabbing creates a new key value persisted via stage_anim_save, and the exact page reply shape. It still omits whether the page/scene must be open, permissions, and what happens for objects with no keys.

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 verb-and-resource is correctly front-loaded and every sentence carries content, but the first sentence is a ~60-word run-on that packs rendering details, color gradient, and frustum geometry into one breath. It is dense rather than wasteful, but readability suffers.

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 3-parameter visualization tool with an output schema, the description covers behavior, side effects, persistence, and even the reply payload, so an agent can call it correctly. The only real hole is the unexplained required 'scene' parameter and any environment preconditions.

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. It explains 'object' thoroughly (a name or list of names, and the none-with-show=True/False behavior) and clarifies 'show' semantics, but the required 'scene' parameter is never mentioned anywhere, leaving a mandatory input undocumented.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource ("Draw a keyed object's path on the clock") and names the underlying page command (trail), so the agent can tell this is a visualization/overlay tool rather than a key editor. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like stage_timeline_show or stage_keys_set, and the domain jargon ('clock', 'frustum', 'keyed object') assumes prior context.

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?

Usage is only implied through the show flag ('none with show=True draws every keyed camera, none with show=False hides every path') and the VR interaction notes. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X' routing against the many stage_* animation siblings, and no stated preconditions such as needing the page or a scene with keys.

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