save_config

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds context annotations cannot convey: the write target is EEPROM (persistent, overwriting stored config) and this call is a mandatory completion step in a write workflow, which materially changes how an agent sequences its calls.

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 with the action and destination front-loaded and the workflow obligation in a short parenthetical. Nothing is padded and no sentence is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, no parameters and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what an agent needs to call it correctly. It could go slightly further by noting side effects common to EEPROM commits on flight controllers (e.g. brief disconnect/reboot), but nothing essential is absent.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4; there is no argument syntax the description needs to explain. No parameters are left undocumented.

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 specific verb and resource ('Sauvegarde la configuration courante') plus the exact destination ('en EEPROM du FC'), so the agent knows this persists config to non-volatile memory rather than just reading or transmitting it. The parenthetical ties it to the SET-family siblings, distinguishing it from every get_*/set_* tool in the list.

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?

'obligatoire après tout SET' gives an explicit triggering condition, which is exactly the routing information an agent needs after calling set_pid_values, set_rates, etc. It stops short of stating when NOT to call it (e.g. after pure read operations) or naming specific alternatives, so it falls just below the full when/when-not/alternatives bar.

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