Stage Waypoint Go

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does disclose real behavior: it delegates to person_goto, so it flies on desktop and places instantly in VR, it can fail with 'no such pin' or 'no open pin', and it emits a waypoint_go event. Reversibility and any permission prerequisites are unstated, keeping it below 5.

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?

Compact but written as a run-on with stacked parentheticals, and '(page command: waypoint_go)' plus 'Emits: waypoint_go' partly repeat the same fact. The core placement rule is buried mid-sentence rather than front-loaded.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description still covers the reply shape, error cases, event emission, and desktop-vs-VR execution differences, which is substantial for a 4-parameter tool with no annotations. The undocumented required `scene` parameter is the one notable omission.

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 define all four parameters. It adds meaning for wp (the pin), next (first todo then first note), and distance (metres from the pin opposite side), but the required `scene` parameter is never mentioned at all, leaving a real gap.

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 (send the person to a pin) plus the exact standing placement rule, and notes it wraps person_goto, which separates it from siblings like stage_person_goto or stage_waypoint_set. The dense jargon ('stand', 'target', 'page command') makes the sentence harder to parse than it needs to be, so it stops short of 5.

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 selection semantics of `next` (first todo, else first note) and lists error cases (no such pin, no open pin), which implies when this is the right call. But it never states when to use stage_person_goto or a plain pin lookup instead, so the alternative selection is left to inference.

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