set_physics_asset_constraint_drives

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: read-modify-write semantics, that only provided fields change (partial update), that it is an idempotent set-to-fixed-value operation, and that edits persist into the asset rather than affecting a live simulation. This is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs before mutating a shared asset.

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 prose is dense and front-loaded, leading with the action and then the semantics. The long 'Returns:' block is verbose but earns its place because there is no output schema, so it is the only source of return-shape information.

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 25-parameter asset mutation tool, the definition covers the essentials: authoring-only scope, partial-update semantics, idempotency, and a full return shape. It stops short of explaining save behavior implied by the returned saved/save_error fields, and it relies on the schema to point at get_physics_asset_info for valid constraint names.

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 every one of the 25 parameters is already documented in the schema, and the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond grouping them as 'linear + angular motors, breakable thresholds, and projection'. Per the rubric, a 3 is the correct baseline when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 and resource (set a UPhysicsAsset constraint's drives, breakable thresholds, projection) and pins down scope with the phrase 'behavior beyond limits', implicitly separating it from set_physics_asset_constraint_limits. It also distinguishes itself from the runtime sibling set_physics_constraint_drives by declaring 'Authoring-only: the values persist into the asset (the live motor effect is observed in PIE/sim).'

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?

Gives clear context for when this is the right tool: asset-authoring edits that persist, as opposed to live motor effects observed in PIE/sim. The boundary with the limits tool ('behavior beyond limits') is implied rather than spelled out, and no alternative is named explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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