set_filter_config

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (destructive, idempotent, non-read-only), yet the description adds substantial behavior: partial-update semantics, the firmware may silently correct inconsistent values and the response returns re-read values, the armed refusal, a firmware/API version gate, and a required follow-up call. This is well beyond what structured fields convey.

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?

Six compact sentences, front-loaded with the mutation action followed by scope, behavior, constraints, and the next step. Dense but every sentence carries distinct information; minor cramping from packing version, armed gate, and follow-up into one block.

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 a single nested object parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the definition covers everything an agent needs: what changes, version prerequisite, armed guard, silent firmware correction with re-read confirmation, and the required save_config follow-up.

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% and the schema already enumerates every accepted setting, its firmware range, and enum literals, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that keys use Betaflight CLI names and points to get_filter_config as the naming source, which is a modest but real gain over the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Modifie des filtres') and immediately scopes it: global gyro filters plus D-term and yaw_lowpass_hz of the active PID profile. It references the sibling get_filter_config for CLI naming, so an agent can distinguish this from the read-only counterpart and from set_pid_values without opening any 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?

It gives clear operational context: only supplied fields change, the FC must not be armed, the tool requires Betaflight 2025.12+ / API >= 1.47, and save_config must be called afterwards. It does not name competing setters (e.g. set_pid_values) or state when-not-to-use beyond the armed refusal, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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