Add colored floor tape

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add genuinely useful behavior: "A color sensor over the tape reads its color name" tells the agent the tape is detectable during simulation runs. It does not disclose whether tape persists across resets, whether overlapping tape is allowed, or whether tape physically affects the robot, which are the mutation semantics an agent needs for a world-editing 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?

Two compact sentences, purpose front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by explaining the observable effect of the tape. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

For a six-parameter world-authoring tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it creates and how sensors perceive it, but omits persistence, overlap/limits, and any return information. Adequate to call the tool, not sufficient to predict its side effects.

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 83%, with x/y/angle/width/length all documented in-schema including defaults and ranges, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning of its own (no guidance on placement, orientation, or typical dimensions), so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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 and resource ("Stick a strip of colored tape on the floor") and even names the consumers (color sensor, line following, camera), so the agent knows exactly what the tool creates. The add/remove pairing with sibling remove_color_tape is obvious from the names, but the description never explicitly contrasts the two, keeping it just short of a 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?

The stated use cases (color sensor readings, line following, camera detection) imply when to reach for this tool, which gives usable context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of the removal counterpart, and no constraints on how much tape can be placed.

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