set_battery_profile

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so the safety bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: partial-update semantics ('only provided fields change'), the min<=warning<=full<=max validation rule, the armed-state refusal, and the fact that persistence requires a follow-up save_config call.

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?

Four tight clauses, front-loaded with the action and target, then validation, precondition, and required follow-up. No filler sentences.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the key gaps an agent needs: partial update semantics, validation ordering, state precondition, and the persistence step. What it lacks is guidance on failure modes (invalid index, rejected values) beyond the armed case.

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%, with index range and per-field firmware ranges already documented in the schema. The description restates the ordering constraint that the schema already states, adding no new parameter-level detail beyond the baseline.

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?

Specific verb+resource+targeting key: modifies a battery profile by index. An agent can tell it apart from get_battery_profiles and set_battery_config by the index-based profile scope, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with the similarly named set_battery_config sibling.

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 operational context: requires Betaflight 2026.6+, is refused when the FC is armed, and instructs to call save_config afterwards. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when-not-to-use beyond the armed precondition.

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