set_constraint_limits

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

Adds genuine context beyond annotations: that supplying a limit sets that axis to Limited, that linear is shared across X/Y/Z, and that swing/twist are in degrees. It does not, however, address the destructiveHint=true implications (what existing limits get overwritten) or confirm idempotency semantics beyond the annotation.

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 sentences plus a tightly formatted return structure. Front-loaded with the action and resource; the returns block is long but informative and clearly separated. No filler.

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?

The description covers the mutation semantics, units, and axis behavior an agent needs, and enumerates the return payload in lieu of an output schema. It could be more complete by stating what happens to unset axes and warning about destructive overwrite of existing limits.

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 coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already described. The description reinforces units (degrees for swing/twist; cm is only in the schema) and the special shared-axis behavior of linear_limit, adding marginal value above the schema baseline.

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 specific verb (Set) and resource (linear/angular limits on a physics-constraint actor's UPhysicsConstraintComponent), and notes it reads back. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling set_physics_asset_constraint_limits or set_physics_constraint_drives, which is the main clarity gap.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives like set_physics_asset_constraint_limits or set_physics_constraint_drives. The one implicit hint is that providing a limit sets the axis to Limited, which is a behavioral note more than a usage condition.

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