set_feedforward_transition

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains the core behavior (blends FF toward zero near stick center), the meaning of different values, and the conflict with feedforward_jitter_factor. No contradictions, and the critical warning adds transparency.

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 compact, with essential information front-loaded. Two sentences plus a bracket note cover purpose, behavior, examples, and a critical warning. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single integer parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fully adequate. It explains behavior, provides value guidance, and warns about a sibling conflict, which is the main contextual consideration.

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% but the description adds substantial meaning: explains the effect of different values (0=racing, 40=freestyle/HD, 70=cinematic), specifies the range and default, and provides the critical context about combining with jitter factor. This goes well beyond the schema's basic 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 tool sets the feedforward_transition parameter and explains its behavior (blends FF toward zero near stick center). It gives concrete example values for different flight styles, and distinguishes from siblings by explicitly warning about interaction with feedforward_jitter_factor.

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 guidance on when to set to 0 (when feedforward_jitter_factor is active), with a warning not to combine them. It also implies usage contexts through value examples (racing, freestyle/HD, cinematic). However, it does not compare directly with other feedforward siblings like averaging or boost.

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