Set avatar pose

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context like units ('metres') and the quaternion format, and states the prerequisite that at least one of position/orientation is required. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, whether the movement is instantaneous, coordinate system, or any state restrictions. The core behavior (moving/turning the avatar) is clear, but depth is lacking.

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 long and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence adds essential technical details without unnecessary filler. Every word contributes, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, units, and the minimum-parameter condition. It doesn't fully explain all behavioral nuances (e.g., coordinate system, effects), but the output schema likely covers return values. It is reasonably complete for an experienced agent, though not exhaustive.

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?

The input schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by clarifying that 'Position is metres' and that orientation is a quaternion (though schema hints at it). More importantly, it states the cross-parameter constraint 'At least one of position or orientation must be given,' which is not captured in the schema's required list. This goes beyond the schema.

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 states the tool's function: 'Move and/or turn the client avatar.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like teleport_connect or teleport_set_mode. The description also specifies the two possible actions (position and orientation), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 stating it moves/turns the avatar, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The added note 'At least one of position or orientation must be given' is a parameter constraint rather than tool-selection guidance. No exclusions or alternative tools are named.

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