set_pid_values

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

Annotations already declare it is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), destructive (destructiveHint=true), and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it clarifies that only the specified axis is modified while other axes are preserved, and it warns that save_config must be called afterwards to persist changes.

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 two short sentences plus a follow-up instruction, with the core action and scope front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place: it names the action, the preserved scope, and the required next step.

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 4-parameter configuration setter with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers the essential action, the partial-update semantics, and the save_config follow-up. It does not mention prerequisite connection state, but that is a minor gap given the annotations already convey the safety profile and there is no output schema to explain.

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 all four parameters documented in the schema (including ranges 0-250 and the axis enum). The description repeats the axis list but adds no new syntactic or semantic information about the P, I, and D parameters, so the schema carries the full burden and the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Modifie') and resource ('valeurs PID pour un axe') and enumerates the valid axis values. It is clearly distinct from read-oriented siblings like get_pid_values, but it does not distinguish itself from the more advanced sibling set_pid_advanced, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool (to change PID values for one axis) and provides a crucial follow-up instruction to call save_config afterwards. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like set_pid_advanced or set_rates, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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