set_joint_limits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that values are expressions, that rest_value is a NEW snap-back position, and that it echoes back stored values under 'applied' with internal units. However, it does not mention side effects, error conditions (e.g., nonexistent joint), or permission requirements, which are important for a mutation tool.

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 paragraph with several sentences, but each adds value: it states the purpose, explains expression formats, notes the snap-back feature, and discloses the response format. It is front-loaded and avoids claims; only minor redundancy is the phrase 'values are expressions' repeated implicitly. No waste.

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?

Given the tool has no annotation or output schema, the description adequately covers the return behavior (echoing stored values with units) and the binding logic. It does not detail error handling or prerequisites like joint existence, but for a setter tool this is acceptable. The complexity is moderate and the description provides enough for typical use.

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 explains that values are expressions with examples, clarifies the null-passing behavior for unset fields, and defines rest_value as the snap-back position. It effectively covers all four parameters, though it could be more explicit about valid expression syntax beyond the given examples.

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 tool sets min/max/rest values on an existing joint by name, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like drive_joint (which moves joints) and create_joint (which creates them), and names the exact fields being set.

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 strong context on when to use the tool: it describes expression formats for revolute vs slider joints, mentions the snap-back feature, and explains which limit property binds based on joint type. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving a small gap in exclusions.

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