Rocky Set Domain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not explain whether an open project is required, whether omitted/null parameters leave existing limits unchanged or reset them, how use_boundary_limits interacts with min_values/max_values, or what the response contains—significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but it is terse to the point of being under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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?

Although an output schema exists and parameter schemas are fully described, four optional mutation parameters with default null values demand more context about side effects, null handling, and prerequisites than this one-line description provides.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including defaults and coordinate formats. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is in the schema, which is the baseline expectation when coverage is high.

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 has a specific verb ('Configure') and resource ('Rocky domain limits'), but 'domain limits' is vague—it doesn't clarify that this sets computational domain extents via min/max coordinates or boundary limits. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings like rocky_set_simulation_settings or rocky_set_motion.

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, what prerequisites exist (e.g., an open project), or how it relates to alternatives such as rocky_import_wall or rocky_create_surface. The single sentence leaves all usage conditions to inference.

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