set_f_pitch

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the data type (UINT16) and default value (125), but omits side effects (e.g., requires reboot, write to flash, affects flight behavior).

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 sentence with a parenthetical note, concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes information, no 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?

Given the tool is a simple setter with 100% schema coverage, the description provides essential info but lacks details on persistence (volatile vs saved), when the value takes effect, or if any constraints beyond schema apply. Adequate but incomplete.

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 'Feed forward for pitch' beyond the schema's 'Value for f_pitch (UINT16)', explaining the parameter's purpose. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3, and this adds meaningful context.

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 it sets the feed forward value for pitch ('Feed forward for pitch'), distinguishing it from other set_* tools. The verb 'Set' is explicit, and the resource 'f_pitch' is identified. However, it could more clearly differentiate from the 'get_f_pitch' sibling.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_f_pitch' or whether there are prerequisites (e.g., motor stopped, disarmed). The description lacks context for appropriate usage.

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