sim_set_params

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the change applies to the 'live' articulation (implying runtime mutation), but says nothing about prerequisites (e.g. sim_up), reversibility, units, or what happens to parameters left null.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and the affected resource. Every clause 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?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but for an unannotated mutation tool with 0% parameter coverage the description is too thin. Units, null semantics, and the requirement that the articulation be live are all left unstated.

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 none of the three parameters (effort, damping, stiffness) are named or documented. 'PD gains' loosely maps to stiffness/damping and 'effort limit' to effort, but this is inference the description never makes explicit, and null/default behavior is unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (change), resource (PD gains and effort limit), and scope (driven joints on the live articulation). This distinguishes it from sim_set_targets and sim_set_pose, which mutate different properties. Lacks explicit naming of siblings but the resource is specific enough to differentiate.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The phrase 'on the live articulation' hints that the sim must be running, but the agent gets no routing help against sim_set_targets, sim_set_pose, or sim_set_coupling.

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