move_control

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool sets a state and may auto-deactivate after durationMs, which is useful but largely repeats the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not mention side effects, precedence over other controls, or behavior when active is false beyond what the schema says.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and includes only essential information. Every phrase earns its place—no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, all schema-documented, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is sufficient to understand the tool's core functionality. It clearly covers the state-setting purpose and optional auto-deactivation, though it could mention the active boolean parameter explicitly or reference stop_all_controls for completeness.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema; it repeats the direction list and mentions durationMs but provides no additional context about parameter interaction or effects.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and clearly identifies the resource: movement control states, enumerating all valid controls (forward, back, left, right, jump, sprint, sneak). This inherently distinguishes it from sibling tools like stop_all_controls or fly_to, which address different movement operations.

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 implies usage by describing the action, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stop_all_controls or fly_to. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternative tools.

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