set_feedforward_smooth_factor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that higher values increase smoothing, and gives the valid range and default. However, it does not describe potential side effects, impact on flight characteristics, or any prerequisites.

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 specification bracket. It is extremely concise, front-loads the purpose, and contains no filler. Every word 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 setter tool with one parameter, the description covers the parameter's purpose, effect, range, and default. No output schema is needed. Context is complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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% with the 'value' parameter already described. The description adds meaning by explaining the role of feedforward_smooth_factor and the effect of higher values, plus explicitly stating the default (65), which goes beyond 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 verb 'Set' and the resource 'feedforward_smooth_factor'. It explains the purpose as 'Additional smoothing applied to the FF signal' and describes the effect: 'Higher = smoother FF output'. The range and default values are provided, making it highly specific and distinguishing it from other set_* tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_feedforward_jitter_factor or set_feedforward_boost. It implies usage for adjusting smoothing, but lacks when-not-to-use or comparative context.

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