set_constraint_influence

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

The added range (0.0 to 1.0) gives behavioral context beyond the idempotentHint annotation, but it does not disclose clamping behavior, whether the constraint must exist, or any other side effects. The annotation covers idempotency, so the description's minimal input is acceptable but not rich.

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?

A single sentence that gets directly to the point with no filler. The front-loaded structure and efficient phrasing are exemplary for a simple setter 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?

Despite the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description fails to explain required parameters or usage context. An agent would struggle to know what 'object' and 'constraint' refer to, and there is no guidance on when to use this specialized setter versus the generic set_constraint_property.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It only explains the 'influence' parameter's range, leaving 'object', 'constraint', and optional 'bone' unexplained. Parameter names offer some clues, but the description adds value for only one of four parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('constraint influence') with a numeric range, making the action clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool set_constraint_property, but naming the influence property provides enough specificity for basic selection.

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 like set_constraint_property, nor any prerequisites such as the constraint already existing. The description implies its use only from the name, offering no explicit context.

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