sim_set_coupling

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral meaning: values are keyed by follower joint, 0 releases a follower, and couplings must be declared in the robot config. It still omits error behavior, persistence across steps/reloads, and what happens to unspecified couplings, leaving meaningful gaps 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the one non-obvious value rule ('0 releases a follower'). No filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 no explanation, and the single parameter is well covered semantically. The main residual gap for an annotation-free mutation tool is failure/edge behavior and whether the change persists, which keeps it from a 5.

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 coverage is 0% and the parameter is an untyped key->number map, so the description must compensate. It does: the keys are follower joints, the values are the ratio multiplier applied to the leader's target, and 0 has the special meaning of releasing the follower. Value limits/units are not given, preventing a 5.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Change software-coupling ratios') and clarifies the mechanism ('a follower is driven to ratio x its leader's target'), which is distinguishable from siblings like sim_set_targets or sim_set_params. It never explicitly names or contrasts with those siblings, so it stops short of 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 word 'live' hints that this is a runtime change, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not, and no naming of alternatives such as sim_set_targets or sim_set_pose. Usage must be inferred from the coupling semantics alone.

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