sim_set_targets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that targets persist until sim_step advances the sim, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior when vectors are wrong length, or blocking characteristics. One genuine behavioral trait is disclosed, so a mid score is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentences: the core action and normalization first, then the parameter routing, then the persistence/next-step note. No filler.

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 not be explained, and the description covers argument modes, units, and the step coupling. For a two-optional-parameter command tool it is nearly complete, with only error/edge-case behavior left implicit.

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% (bare array/object with no descriptions), so the description must compensate. It does so well: it explains that `unit` is a full vector in driven order and `joints` maps joint names to values, plus the 0..1-to-limit normalization semantics that appear nowhere in the schema.

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 and resource ('Command the driven joints') with the normalization scheme (0..1 mapped to lower..upper limit), so the agent understands this sets joint targets rather than poses or parameters. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like sim_set_pose or sim_set_params, which keeps it from 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?

Gives clear either/or guidance for the two parameters: pass `unit` as a full driven-order vector, or `joints` to address individual joints by name, and points to sim_status for the driven order. It also tells the agent the next step ('advance with sim_step'), but offers no explicit when-not or comparison against alternative setters.

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