set_rig_control_limits

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

Annotations already declare destructive/idempotent/readOnly hints and the schema's force param covers the PIE refusal danger, so the bar is lower. The description still adds useful behavior: enabling the limit array, type-correct MinimumValue/MaximumValue assignment, and 'Verified read-back' confirming the write is validated.

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-loads the core action, then terse behavioral and return details. Slightly dense but every clause (type-correct set, read-back, downstream clamping) contributes meaning; 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?

No output schema exists, but the description inlines the return shape (asset_path, control_name, limit_enabled, saved, save_error), covering what an agent needs. Combined with 100% schema coverage and annotations, it is essentially complete, missing only explicit prerequisites/permission notes.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema via the type-correctness note for MinimumValue/MaximumValue and the accepted control types; the individual parameters are otherwise fully documented in 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?

States a specific verb (Set) and resource (scalar Control Rig control's min/max limits) with the accepted control types enumerated (Float/ScaleFloat/Integer). An agent can distinguish it from set_rig_control_value and set_rig_control_settings without opening either 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?

Provides clear context by explaining the downstream relationship to set_rig_control_value (limits clamp via ApplyLimits once enabled), which helps the agent understand when the limits take effect. However, it does not give explicit when-not guidance or contrast against sibling limit-setting tools.

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