set_maximum_acceleration

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does add useful behavioral detail: the motor parameter can be 'all' to broadcast, and broadcasts receive no responses back. However, it does not explain effects on current or subsequent moves, persistence, or safety implications of changing max acceleration.

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 compact and structured with a clear action line, parameter bullet, return note, and motor explanation. The motor detail placed after the return note is slightly out of order, but every part earns its place and there is no filler.

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 two-parameter configuration command with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers both parameters, units, allowed motor identifiers, and return behavior. It does not cover range or side effects, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly for typical cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides the unit for maximumAcceleration (degrees_per_second_squared) and gives detailed semantics for motor: alias number, 16-hex-digit ID, or 'all' for broadcast, including the no-response consequence. The maximumAcceleration meaning is still close to tautological, but the unit and motor detail add real value.

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 action and resource: 'Sets max acceleration'. It clearly identifies the tool as the configuration command for maximum acceleration, which distinguishes it from siblings like set_maximum_velocity and move_with_acceleration. The firmware-command and group context reinforce what it does.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as move_with_acceleration or set_maximum_velocity. The context is implied by the name and resource, but no when/when-not guidance or alternative routing is provided.

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