lira_set_stiffness

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool. It does not say whether assigning a stiffness overwrites existing values, whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are required, or what side effects occur.

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 description is only two sentences, front-loads the core action, and uses the second sentence for the key workflow relationship with lira_copy_stiffness. There is no wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, the description should at least clarify overwrite behavior or the role of the unexplained 'model' parameter; it remains adequate but incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains the elements syntax ('[1, 5]' or '1-10 15') and that stiffness should be a number from lira_model_summary, but it does not explain the optional 'model' parameter at all, leaving one of three 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 and resource: 'Assign a stiffness ... to elements'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling lira_copy_stiffness by explaining that copy creates a stiffness whereas this tool assigns it.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use this tool versus lira_copy_stiffness: to make a group stiffer or softer, first create a stiffness with copy_stiffness and then assign it here. It also tells the agent where to source stiffness values (lira_model_summary), though it does not state explicit exclusions.

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