set_failsafe_procedure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the effect of each value (motor cut, auto-land, GPS rescue) and notes the default. However, it does not mention side effects, persistence, validation, or whether a reboot is required. The behavioral detail is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 short and to the point, with the purpose front-loaded. It lists options in a structured way. Minor improvement could be using bullet points, but it remains efficient and clear.

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's simplicity (one parameter), the description is fairly complete. It explains the three options and their behaviors, and notes the default. However, it could mention that this is a persistent configuration setting and that changes take effect immediately or after a reboot.

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 input schema describes the parameter as 'Value for failsafe_procedure (UINT8)' with 100% coverage. The description adds significant meaning by listing the three valid string values (DROP, AUTO-LAND, GPS-RESCUE) and their behavioral implications, which goes beyond the schema's generic description.

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 'failsafe_procedure'. It explains three distinct options (DROP, AUTO-LAND, GPS-RESCUE) with brief behavior descriptions. The tool is clearly distinguished from its sibling 'get_failsafe_procedure' as the write counterpart.

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, such as which failsafe procedure to choose for specific scenarios. It also lacks prerequisites or indications of 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.