set_constraint_influence

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

The annotation `idempotentHint: true` is already provided, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the bare action. It does not explain side effects, whether the influence is clamped to the range, or how it interacts with other constraint properties. Given the annotation covers idempotency, the description contributes little extra transparency.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action. However, it is under-specified, bordering on tautological; it lacks sufficient detail to be useful, so the conciseness is not a strength.

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 tool with four parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema details, the description is severely inadequate. It fails to explain what `object`, `constraint`, and `bone` refer to, how they are specified, or what the result of the operation is. An agent would struggle to call this tool correctly without external knowledge.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions the influence range (0.0 to 1.0) but does not explain the meaning or format of `object`, `constraint`, or `bone`. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, which itself lacks 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 states a specific verb ('set') and resource ('constraint influence'), which clearly indicates the action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like `set_constraint_property`, which could also modify the influence property. The wording is unambiguous about the target but lacks explicit distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `set_constraint_property` or `set_modifier_property`. No context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions is provided. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and description.

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