calibrate_accelerometer

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the need for the FC to be level/stationary and the ordering constraint with CLI tools. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., resetting previous calibration) or whether the calibration is immediate or requires a reboot.

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 sentences: first states purpose, second provides precondition and ordering note. No fluff, every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with the action.

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: precondition and ordering. It could mention what happens if called in wrong order or the duration, but overall it's adequate for a simple calibration tool.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not detract from this.

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 calibrates the accelerometer and provides a precondition (level and stationary). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling calibrate_magnetometer, which could cause confusion if both are present.

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 a clear precondition (place level and stationary) and an important ordering constraint (call before CLI tools because MSP cannot be used after CLI mode). It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool, but the context is sufficient for most use cases.

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