set_feedforward_jitter_factor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavioral effect (suppressing FF on slow/jittery inputs) and the tuning impact. However, it omits details like persistence, whether a reboot is required, or any side effects. The description is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 one sentence plus a concise range/default note. Every part adds value: the purpose, behavioral effect, tuning guidance, and parameter constraints. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates all essential information.

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 covers the parameter's effect, tuning trade-offs, range, and default. It does not discuss persistence or side effects, but these are less critical for a basic configuration tool. The description is largely complete for its 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?

The schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds the default value (7) and the type hint (UINT8), which are not in the schema. It also gives context for parameter tuning. This adds meaningful value beyond the schema alone.

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 'feedforward_jitter_factor'. It explains the effect: suppresses feedforward on very slow or jittery stick inputs. It provides tuning guidance for different flying styles (freestyle/HD vs racing), making the purpose highly specific and actionable.

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 gives implicit usage guidance by linking higher values to smoother center feel (suitable for freestyle/HD) and lower values to snappier response (for racing). It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context of flying style helps agents decide when to adjust this parameter.

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