stick

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses x/y range and the return-to-centre behavior, but omits critical details such as side values, duration_ms semantics, snapshot_after_ms, and whether the deflection is held or immediately released.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It efficiently combines purpose, coordinate semantics, and release behavior.

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 tool with five parameters (four required), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too sparse. It covers x/y but leaves essential required parameters and overall call behavior unexplained.

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% for five parameters. The description adds useful meaning for x and y (range -1..1, left/up negative), but completely omits side, duration_ms, and snapshot_after_ms, leaving required parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific verb ('Deflect') and resource ('stick'), and clarifies left/right and return-to-centre behavior. It is clear, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like press, hold, or touchpad, which prevents 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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing this tool over alternatives like touchpad or hold, and no prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the action described.

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