set_acc_calibration

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

With no annotations provided, the description reveals that the tool writes raw calibration offsets and cautions against manual editing, disclosing potential risks. It does not detail side effects or required permissions, but the warning adds meaningful transparency.

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 a single, compact sentence with a format hint, containing zero wasted words. It efficiently conveys purpose, behavioral warning, and parameter details.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and a behavioral warning. It could mention return values or more context about the calibration routine, but it is largely sufficient.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with a basic description, but the description adds significant meaning: the parameter represents raw accelerometer calibration offsets, is INT16 (implying an array of four), and defaults to '0,0,0,0'. This exceeds the baseline and clarifies usage.

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 sets acc_calibration (raw accelerometer calibration offsets) and distinguishes it from siblings like calibrate_accelerometer and get_acc_calibration by specifying it is written by the calibration routine and should not be edited manually.

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 explicitly warns not to edit manually, guiding the agent away from direct use and implying that the calibration routine should be used instead. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or specify when to use this tool.

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