set_wheel_value

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses return value structure (success/failure and old value) but does not mention side effects, prerequisites (e.g., needing to have found offsets), or persistence of changes. The phrase 'using known offsets' hints at complexity but lacks detail.

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 structured with Args and Returns sections, each sentence provides value. It is reasonably concise but could be slightly tighter (e.g., integrating field names list more compactly). No superfluous content.

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 (context signal), so the return description is adequate. However, the description lacks explanation of what 'known offsets' means and how to obtain them, which is critical for correct use. It does not mention any constraints like vehicle state or offset caching requirements.

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%, so the description must compensate. It lists all three parameters with valid ranges (wheel_index 0-3), an enumerated list of field names, and the value type (float). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare types.

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 'Set a wheel field value using known offsets,' specifying the action (set) and the resource (wheel field). Sibling tools like get_wheel_values and set_visual_wheel_size are distinct, so the tool is well-differentiated.

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 implies usage when modifying numeric wheel parameters via offsets, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_visual_wheel_size or find_wheel_visual_offsets. No when-not guidance is provided.

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