move_to

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses blocking behavior ('wait for arrival'), the arrival radius criterion, and timeout fallback. However, it omits what happens on timeout, return values, and side effects like camera_path or player_path usage. It provides some useful behavioral detail but not comprehensive coverage.

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 description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and outcome. It is appropriately concise with no redundant information.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for a complex movement tool. It lacks interaction details between camera_path and player_path, the effect of run, look_at_target semantics, and failure/timeout return behavior. The outcome is only partially specified.

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 target (node or world position), arrival_radius, and timeout, but ignores run, camera_path, player_path, and look_at_target. The schema only provides types/defaults without descriptions, leaving 4 out of 7 parameters effectively unexplained.

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 clearly identifies the verb ('walk') and resource ('the 3D player'), and specifies the objective ('toward a target node or world position') with explicit success criteria ('wait for arrival within arrival_radius, or timeout'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like move_node and navigate_to by focusing on player movement and blocking until arrival.

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 conveys a clear usage context: move the 3D player and wait for completion. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives (e.g., navigate_to for pathfinding, move_node for moving arbitrary nodes). It lacks exclusions but gives enough context for typical movement scenarios.

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