set_angle_earth_ref

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It communicates the parameter range and default but does not mention side effects, persistence, reboot requirements, or whether the change takes effect immediately. This is a gap for a mutation tool.

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: a single sentence that states the purpose, explains the parameter range, and ends with a recommendation and type hint. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the parameter semantics and offers a usage recommendation. It could be improved by noting whether the setting is persistent or requires a reboot, but it is largely complete given the tool's low complexity.

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%, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema's minimal description: it explains what the value represents (proportion of earth-frame reference) and clarifies the meaning of the endpoints (0 = body frame, 100 = full earth frame). This helps an agent select an appropriate value.

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's function: setting the proportion of earth-frame reference used in angle mode. It explains the meaning of the values (0 = body frame, 100 = full earth frame) and gives a recommended value for GPS rescue compatibility. This distinguishes it well from other set_* tools in the large sibling list.

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 implies usage context by recommending 100 for GPS rescue compatibility, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Among siblings, this is the unique setter for angle_earth_ref, so usage is straightforward, but the guidance is minimal.

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