set_fl_parameter

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

Annotations cover safety (not read-only, not destructive), and the description adds real value beyond them: the call returns actual hardware readback, it rejects stale handles and refuses while recording, and it pushes an undo entry so the change is reversible. It does not say how failures surface (error vs. silent no-op).

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?

Two short sentences, mutation verb front-loaded, no filler. The telegraphic style ("stores bridge undo") trades a little clarity for density.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description leaves the return value ("actual readback") undefined and does not say what happens on a max_delta violation or an out-of-band value. The preconditions it does cover are the ones that matter most, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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% and each parameter already carries a description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces that handle must come from a live get_fl_parameters call but says nothing about value normalization or max_delta beyond what the schema states.

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?

"Change one ... knob and return actual readback" gives a specific verb plus a single-resource scope, which distinguishes it from get_fl_parameters (read) and undo_fl_change (revert). The jargon "knob" and "bridge undo" slightly obscure the object being changed, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

"Freshly inspected" makes the prerequisite explicit: you must call get_fl_parameters first, and the "Refuses ... recording" clause tells the agent a context where it will not work. It never names an alternative sibling or says when to prefer undo_fl_change, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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