set_ez_landing_limit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool sets a value but does not explain side effects (e.g., impact on flight behavior, need for reboot, or persistence). The note 'per profile' gives a hint of profile-specific storage, but this is insufficient for a write 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 a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the action and resource, then efficiently presents the key attributes (type, range, default). Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter setter with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It explains the parameter and gives defaults. However, it lacks information about the effect of setting this value (e.g., immediate application or after reboot) and any confirmation of success. This is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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% (the single parameter 'value' is described). The description adds value by specifying the default (15) and the per-profile behavior, which goes beyond the schema's type and range. This helps the agent understand the typical value and storage scope.

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 'ez_landing_limit', and explains its function as 'Minimum throttle floor enforced by EZ landing (%)'. It correctly identifies the purpose and provides key details like type and range. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like set_ez_landing_speed or set_ez_landing_threshold, which are also EZ-related settings.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or scenarios where adjusting this limit is appropriate. Users are left to infer usage from the parameter description alone.

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