motor_set

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the output value ranges and the effect (setting motor output). However, it does not disclose failure modes, persistence of the setting, or safety state requirements beyond the props-off warning. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences front-load the action and warning, then explain the values. No filler. Every sentence adds 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 a simple setter with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, value semantics, and a safety warning. Lacks notes on success/failure signals or persistence, but given the tool's simplicity, it is mostly 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% with both parameters fully described. The description reiterates the value range and adds the '0 = off' clarification, but this is already in the schema. There is no additional semantic insight beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Set the output value for a specific motor' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like motor_get by its action. The value range and meaning are also provided, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 includes a caution ('use with caution — props off!') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. There is no guidance on prerequisites like arming state. Sibling tools like motor_get are for reading, so the usage is implied but not compared.

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