set_battery_continue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the type (UINT8) and default (OFF), but does not explain what values are valid (e.g., 0/1), whether this is a runtime or persistent setting, or any side effects like requiring a reboot. This is insufficient 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 concise, with purpose upfront and supplementary info in parentheses. It avoids unnecessary words. A slight improvement would be to separate the type/default info more clearly, but overall it is well-structured.

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 single-parameter setter tool with no output schema and many similar siblings, the description is adequate but lacks critical details like valid value range, confirmation of effect, and whether it requires a reboot. The mention of 'hot-swap builds' adds context, but completeness is average.

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% for the single parameter, but the description adds context: the type and default. However, it does not clarify allowed values beyond 'UINT8' and 'default: OFF', leaving ambiguity (e.g., what numeric values correspond to OFF/ON?). The schema says type string but description says UINT8, which could cause confusion.

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 'battery_continue', then explains the purpose: controlling logging/flying behavior after battery disconnect/reconnect for hot-swap builds. This distinguishes it from other set_* tools in the 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 explicitly mentions a prerequisite (USE_BATTERY_CONTINUE) and the use case (hot-swap builds), providing good guidance on when to use the tool. However, it does not describe when not to use it or compare with alternatives like get_battery_continue.

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