drive_joint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It covers key behaviors: the order of trying jointMotion attributes, silent ignoring of over-limit drives, and the need to check the applied flag. However, it does not disclose other side effects (e.g., whether the joint is moved physically, any undo implications) or auth/permission needs.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, then a line on the value expression, then a note on attribute order, and finally a crucial behavioral warning and response hint. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key usage points: value expression, attribute order, and response field. It does not describe the full return body (e.g., whether it returns only `applied`), but the mention of `applied` is enough for basic use. The complexity is moderate, so this is fairly complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only parameter names in the schema, the description partially compensates by explaining the value parameter (what it means for different joint types). It does not explain joint_name but that is fairly self-explanatory; the description adds meaningful context for value.

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 clearly states the action (drive), the target (an existing joint), and the goal (to a target value). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_joint or set_joint_limits by focusing on motion of existing joints.

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 explains the value parameter is an expression (e.g., angle for revolute, distance for slider), which provides usage context. It also warns about silent ignore of limits and advises checking the response, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_joint_limits).

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