Stage View Walk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses platform limits (desktop only), the error case (VR), the page reply shape ({mode}), and the emitted event ('Emits: mode'). It leaves out whether the toggle persists across scene reloads or requires a specific camera/permission state, which is the remaining gap for a state-mutating 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?

Every clause earns its place: the capability, the platform constraint, the error case, the reply shape and the emitted event, with the core action front-loaded. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

Covers errors, reply values and emitted events, and an output schema exists so return values need no further explanation. The one omission is the unexplained required 'scene' parameter, which matters because nothing else in the structured data describes it.

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% and neither of the two required parameters is documented in the schema. The description's 'on or off' implicitly explains the 'on' boolean, but 'scene' — a required string — is never mentioned, so an agent has no guidance on which scene identifier to supply.

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 ('Turn desktop walk mode ... on or off') and defines the mode concretely (eye height over the floor, WASD, mouse look). It implicitly separates itself from other view tools by naming the alternative modes orbit/walk/look-through, but it never names a sibling tool it contrasts with (e.g. stage_view_look_through), so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Gives a clear applicability constraint in 'Desktop only' and an explicit failure condition 'Errors: in VR', which tells the agent when this call is inappropriate. It does not say when to prefer this over the other stage_view_* tools, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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