set_dyn_idle_d_gain

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

The description discloses the data type, range, and default value, but it does not mention any side effects, persistence behavior (e.g., immediate effect, need for reboot), or permission requirements. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of transparency, and it fails to cover essential behavioral aspects for a mutation operation.

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: one sentence with a bracketed specification. It front-loads the core action and resource, and every word adds value. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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, the description covers the parameter semantics well. However, it lacks broader context: no return value indication, no hints about when to apply or what effects occur. With no output schema, the description should at least hint at success/failure behavior. Still, it meets the minimum for a basic tool.

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 a default value ('default: 50') that is not present in the input schema's property description. It also clarifies the data type and range, which are already in the schema, so the added value is moderate but positive. Given 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the default value justifies a 4.

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 that the tool sets the D gain of the dynamic idle RPM controller. It uses a specific verb ('Set'), names the parameter ('dyn_idle_d_gain'), and specifies its role ('D gain of the dynamic idle RPM controller'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_dyn_idle_i_gain and set_dyn_idle_p_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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explain the context (e.g., tuning the derivative component of idle RPM control) or when not to use it. The agent must rely on the tool name to infer its purpose, which is insufficient for effective selection among many similar set_* tools.

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