set_align_board_yaw

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool sets a rotation offset, includes the data type, range, and default value. While it does not mention persistence or side effects on attitude calculations, the tool is a simple parameter setter, and the exposed information is sufficient for understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise: one sentence explaining the purpose, followed by a compact bracket notation for type, range, and default. Every part is essential, with no redundancy or wasted words.

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 the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects) and the good schema coverage, the description is complete. It covers what the tool sets, its purpose, acceptable values, and default, leaving no obvious gaps.

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 a description for the single parameter. The description adds the default value (45) and explicitly mentions degrees, which are not in the schema. This extra context enhances understanding beyond the schema alone, warranting a score above the baseline of 3.

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 verb 'Set' and the resource 'align_board_yaw', explaining it as 'Board rotation offset in yaw (degrees)' and specifying the use case 'for non-standard FC mounting orientations.' This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_align_board_pitch and set_align_board_roll.

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 indicates when to use the tool ('For non-standard FC mounting orientations'), providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or offer alternatives, but the intended scenario is well-defined, and the sibling tools cover similar cases for other axes.

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