set_physics_asset_constraint_limits

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, destructive, and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: read-modify-write axis-preservation semantics, degree/cm units, the Free|Limited|Locked model, and the implicit-Limited rule. It does not explain what is overwritten or how saving works beyond the return shape.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb+resource, then dense unit/enum/behavior rules in a compact block. It is somewhat run-on but nearly every clause carries actionable information; only the repeated idempotency note is redundant with the annotation.

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 12-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers scope, units, motion semantics, and the returned fields (including saved/save_error). It is nearly self-sufficient, missing only explicit guidance on prerequisite lookups (referenced only in the schema) and save behavior detail.

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% (baseline 3), but the description adds semantics the schema lacks: the linear limit is a single value shared across X/Y/Z, units are degrees vs cm, and a provided *_limit implies Limited without an explicit motion. That meaningfully extends the parameter docs.

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 motion types and limits) scoped to an existing constraint inside a UPhysicsAsset, which distinguishes it from runtime siblings like set_constraint_limits and set_physics_constraint_drives. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 operational context: read-modify-write so only provided axes change, and that supplying a *_limit without its motion implies Limited. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or exclusions, so it stops short of full when-to-use routing.

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