Set Joint Value

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

Adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotations: the call verifies Fusion retained the value, and Fusion zeroes joint values on the next design.computeAll(), so recomputing must be avoided. That is a non-obvious side effect the readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints do not convey. It stops short of 5 because error behavior (out-of-range values, unknown joint name) and the shape of the confirmation are unstated.

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?

Front-loads the action and confirmation, then layers units, joint targeting, and the computeAll caveat in tight sentences. The trailing clause "- the command itself does not" is slightly ambiguous and could be trimmed or clarified.

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 six-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential semantic traps: unit conventions, slide-is-always-cm, as-built default, and the recompute hazard. Missing failure modes and the form of the success confirmation keep it from full completeness.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented, including the units enum, the cm-only slide rule, and as_built default. The description mostly restates those facts; the only marginal addition is the emphasis that slide values are never converted. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource plus an outcome: "Drive a joint to a value and confirm Fusion kept it." That is clearly distinct from joint-creation siblings like add_joint or create_as_built_joint, but the description never names an alternative to route against, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Gives real decision context: as-built joints are the default target unless as_built=False, and the agent is warned to avoid computeAll() after this call. It does not state when to prefer this over a different tool or what to do if the joint is missing, so no explicit exclusions.

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