set_feedforward_boost

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the effect (acceleration component) and symptoms to address, but does not disclose whether changes are persistent or require a reboot. This 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 two concise sentences plus a parenthetical with value info. It is well-structured, front-loads the purpose, and every sentence adds value.

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 with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what it does, how to tune it, and the valid range. No additional context is needed.

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% and the schema already describes the parameter as 'Value for feedforward_boost (UINT8, 0–50)'. The description adds the default value (15) and context about the value range, but this is largely redundant. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a feedforward boost parameter that adds an acceleration component to FF. It distinguishes itself from many sibling set_* tools by specifying the exact parameter and its function.

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 explicit tuning guidance: 'Increase if gyro lags... Decrease if gyro overshoots...' This tells the agent when to adjust the value. No alternative tools are mentioned, but the context is clear for a specific parameter setter.

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