Set the target velocity of a specified joint in a CoppeliaSim scene to control its motion. Provide the joint name and desired speed to apply the new velocity.
Fija la velocidad objetivo de una articulación.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| junta | Yes | ||
| velocidad | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does 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. It only states the action ('Fija la velocidad objetivo') without mentioning side effects, whether it is a write operation, required permissions, units, or interaction with the simulation lifecycle.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core purpose efficiently and is appropriately concise for a simple two-parameter setter tool.
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 tool is simple, and the description covers the basic action and object, but it lacks important context such as units for velocity, whether the joint must exist, or when the tool should be used relative to simulation state. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description is only minimally sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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?
The input schema has zero description coverage; the parameter descriptions are just titles 'Junta' and 'Velocidad'. The tool description adds only that the velocity is an 'objetivo' (target), but does not explain the format of 'junta', units of 'velocidad', valid ranges, or any other semantic detail.
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 uses a specific verb 'Fija' and a specific resource 'la velocidad objetivo de una articulación', clearly indicating the tool sets a joint's target velocity. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as 'fijar_objetivo_junta', so it does not fully earn a 5.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about simulation state or prerequisites. The only implied usage comes from the tool name and general purpose, which is not enough guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.