set_rates

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: only supplied params change, values are interpreted in the FC's CURRENT rates_type units, and the call returns re-read values plus max_rate_dps.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the action and partial-update rule before the unit caveats and the save_config follow-up. Slightly redundant with the per-parameter schema text, but every sentence carries operational value.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the missing pieces: unit interpretation depends on rates_type, all params are optional, and the return payload (re-read values + max_rate_dps) is disclosed. Only the exact error/failure behavior is unstated.

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% (baseline 3), and the description goes further by tying each parameter's meaning and expected range to the active rates_type (e.g. ACTUAL → rc_rate is Center Sensitivity in °/s, BETAFLIGHT → rc_rate 0-2.55, super rate 0-1, expo 0-1), which the schema only alludes to.

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 ('Modifie les rates par axe') and immediately clarifies partial-update semantics ('Seuls les paramètres fournis changent'), which distinguishes it from full-config writers like set_pid_values and from the read-side sibling get_rates.

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 explicit workflow ordering: call get_rates first to learn the active rates_type, then call save_config afterwards to persist. This is exactly the when-to-use / prerequisite guidance an agent needs before invoking a state-mutating tool.

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