set_crash_recovery_rate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose and valid range, omitting critical details such as side effects, required permissions, or whether changes take effect immediately or require reboot. This is insufficient 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 a single concise sentence with the range and default in brackets. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds value. No wasted or redundant information.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and constraints. However, it lacks context on how this parameter fits into crash recovery overall, and the 'per profile' aspect is only mentioned in passing. Given the large number of sibling tools, more context would be beneficial.

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% (the only parameter is fully described with type, min, max, and description). The description adds the default value '100 (per profile)', which is not in the schema, providing marginal additional value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'crash_recovery_rate', with a clear explanation of what it controls ('rate at which the FC tries to recover from a crash'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_crash_recovery and set_crash_recovery_angle by focusing on the rate parameter.

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 (setting a specific parameter) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like set_crash_recovery or set_crash_recovery_angle. It does not state prerequisites or when not to use it.

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