set_battery_config

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and idempotent=true, but the description adds the preconditions and side effects that matter: rejection while the FC is armed, the mandatory save_config + reboot_fc follow-up sequence, the reboot_required signal in the response, and the firmware version floor. This is exactly the behavioural context annotations cannot express.

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?

Purpose and the pointer to get_battery_config are front-loaded, and each following clause carries a distinct constraint (units, ordering, sensor rule, workflow, version, armed refusal). It is dense but no sentence is filler; slightly telegraphic phrasing is the only cost.

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?

One required nested object with full schema coverage, no output schema, and the description covers the remaining gaps an agent needs: preconditions, follow-up tools, refusal state, and the reboot_required response signal. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: the mandatory ordering min <= warning <= max, the 0.01 V unit convention, and the rule that current_meter=NONE applies when the FC lacks a current sensor. These are constraints the schema does not encode.

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+resource (modify battery config) and immediately disambiguates from the sibling get_battery_config by naming it as the reference for CLI names. An agent can tell this is the write counterpart to get_battery_config without opening either schema.

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 concrete usage conditions: refused when the FC is armed, requires save_config then reboot_fc when changing a measurement source, and requires Betaflight 2025.12+. It does not, however, contrast this tool with the neighbouring set_battery_profile/set_battery_config vs profile tools, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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