set_param

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

The description adds useful behavioral context by mentioning 'pre-read dry-run state capture and post-write verification', which goes beyond a simple 'set'. However, it does not disclose whether the 'confirm_token' is required for safety or what side effects writing a parameter might have, and no annotations are provided to fill this gap.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences, and front-loads the core action. It includes a practical example, but omits critical parameter explanations—though that is more a completeness concern than a conciseness one.

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?

With four parameters, zero annotations, and zero schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only explains param_name/name. It omits 'value' and 'confirm_token', lacks usage guidance, and does not mention any prerequisites or return behavior, making it incomplete for correct invocation.

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?

The description explains 'param_name' with a concrete example and notes that 'name' is an alias, which is helpful. However, it provides no semantics for 'value' or 'confirm_token', leaving two of the four parameters entirely unexplained; schema descriptions are absent, so the agent has insufficient information to correctly populate all arguments.

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 clearly states the tool's action—'Set a ROS parameter'—with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling tool 'set_dynamic_param', which may also set parameters, leaving a potential ambiguity.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_dynamic_param' or 'get_param'. It only states what it does, without providing context for selection or exclusions.

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