set_anti_gravity_p_gain

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the behavior (boosts P-term on rapid throttle changes) and provides a troubleshooting hint. It does not cover persistence or immediate effect, but the parameter range and default are given.

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 with two sentences plus a parenthetical. It is front-loaded with the parameter name and purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 set tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use, parameter details, and troubleshooting. It is fully adequate for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains the parameter's effect (boosts P-term in addition to I), type (UINT8), range (0-250), and default (100). Schema coverage is 100% and description enriches it.

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 the anti_gravity_p_gain parameter, specifies its function (boosts P-term on rapid throttle changes), and provides a troubleshooting hint. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_anti_gravity_p_gain or set_anti_gravity_gain.

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 gives a clear scenario when to adjust: 'Reduce if punches cause P-induced oscillations.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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