set_joint_drive_config

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly mentions atomicity, validation before writing, rollback on apply failure, runtime SI units, and drive_type allowed values. This gives the agent a strong model of side effects and failure behavior beyond what the schema provides.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise precondition and unit details. The Args list is scannable and every sentence adds non-redundant operational value, especially given the complexity of the tool.

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?

For a complex 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers prerequisites, units, validation, rollback, and joint selection semantics. Gaps remain around command_id, idempotency_key, and the default behavior of omitted optional parameters, though an output schema exists to describe return structure.

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 does so for most parameters by explaining gain meanings, units, optionality, and the mutual exclusivity of joint_names and joint_indices. However, command_id and idempotency_key are completely omitted, and the behavior when optional parameters are left null is not explicitly stated.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Atomically update drive gains, limits, or drive type for selected joints.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like set_joint_command or set_joint_positions by focusing on drive configuration rather than executing trajectories or commands.

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 gives clear operational preconditions: the timeline must be stopped, numeric fields must be finite and non-negative, and joint selection is done via names or indices. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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