Stage Waypoint Set

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 merge-on-update semantics, that extra fields are preserved, that the page writes by/at/object/was, per-scene persistence in waypoints.json, the emitted event 'waypoint_set', and the default stand offset of 1.6 m. It does not cover whether fields can be cleared or any permission/authorization requirements, which keeps it below a 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?

Front-loads the core action, then packs the field semantics, id behavior, persistence and reply into a tight block with no filler. Given 8 parameters to explain, the density is justified rather than padded.

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, so the reply description is supplementary rather than required. The description covers creation, mutation semantics, storage scope and side effects. The only gap is the undocumented 'label' parameter and no note on whether merging can null out existing fields.

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, and it largely does: it explains wp (id semantics), kind (with the note|todo|done|look value set), target, stand with its default behavior, position as Blender xyz in metres, scene scope, and note implicitly. Only 'label' is left undocumented, which prevents a 5.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Pin a note at a place in the scene (Blender xyz, metres)', plus the page command alias 'waypoint'. It clearly distinguishes itself from stage_waypoint_go (which consumes target/stand), stage_waypoint_remove and stage_waypoints_list by being the create/update operation.

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?

Explicitly states the update-vs-create rule: 'an existing id updates that pin (fields merge), none makes a new one (wp_<time>)'. It also cross-references waypoint_go for how target/stand are consumed. It lacks guidance on when to prefer stage_marker_set or stage_note instead, but the create/update routing is genuinely actionable.

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