set_anti_gravity_gain

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

Describes the behavioral effect (prevents yaw/pitch dip) and tuning symptom (wobbles). Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden. It lacks mention of whether changes persist after reboot or require additional steps, which is a gap for a setter 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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus a metadata tag. Front-loaded purpose with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 param, the description covers purpose, effect, tuning guidance, and default. Does not explain persistence or relationship to other anti_gravity parameters, but still sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% (one parameter with description). The description adds the default value (80) and reiterates the UINT8 type, which adds value beyond the schema. Baseline is 3, plus 1 for the extra default info.

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 it sets anti_gravity_gain, explains its effect (boosts I-term to prevent dip on punch), and distinguishes from get_anti_gravity_gain. Among many set_* siblings, this is specific and 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?

Provides explicit tuning advice ('Reduce if throttle-punch wobbles appear'), indicating when to lower the value. Does not mention alternatives like set_anti_gravity_cutoff_hz or set_anti_gravity_p_gain, but gives enough context for the typical use case.

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