set_visual_wheel_width

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the modification is visual and separate from physics, and mentions caching of offsets. However, it lacks details on error conditions, scope (all wheels?), and immediate rendering effects.

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: first sentence states purpose, second clarifies separation, third gives prerequisite, then a clear parameter list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, prerequisite, and parameter usage. It mentions caching of offsets, which is useful. However, it does not address potential error cases (e.g., invalid offsets) or limitations (e.g., only certain vehicles). Output schema exists but is not needed per rules.

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%, but the description provides comprehensive parameter details: width range (0.1-0.5), optional nature of offsets with caching behavior, and defaults. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 it sets the visual wheel width using a specific path (StreamRenderGfx) and distinguishes it from physics wheel values. It also differentiates from sibling tool 'set_visual_wheel_size' by focusing on width.

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 explicitly notes that offsets must be discovered first via find_wheel_visual_offsets, providing a clear prerequisite. It also clarifies that this tool modifies rendered width separate from physics, guiding when to use it.

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