set_failsafe_switch_mode

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains each mode's effect (simulates signal loss, instant GPS rescue/drop, instant disarm) and includes a safety warning for KILL. However, it does not mention if the change takes effect immediately or requires a reboot, or if there are any side effects beyond the described 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 concise, consisting of a single sentence with a list. It is front-loaded with the tool name. Every part provides information, though the structure could be slightly improved by separating the list more clearly. No unnecessary words.

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 with one parameter, the description covers the modes and default. However, it lacks information about persistence (whether the setting survives a reboot), immediate effect, or any required conditions (e.g., failsafe system must be configured). Given no output schema, it would be helpful to mention that the tool returns nothing or confirms the change.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single required parameter 'value', but its description ('Value for failsafe_switch_mode (UINT8)') is minimal. The tool description adds significant semantic value by enumerating the three accepted modes (STAGE1, STAGE2, KILL) and detailing their behavior, which is not present in the schema.

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 tool sets 'failsafe_switch_mode' for Aux switch behavior, listing three distinct modes (STAGE1, STAGE2, KILL) with specific use cases. This is a specific verb-resource pairing that distinguishes it well from sibling set_* tools, which all target different parameters.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other failsafe settings or auxiliary switch configurations). The description lacks prerequisites, context about when this setting is applicable, 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.