set_feedforward_yaw_hold_time

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It specifies the parameter's range and default but does not disclose whether changes take effect immediately, require a reboot, or persist. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise, with no redundancy. It frontloads the purpose and immediately provides essential details (unit, range, default). Every element earns its place.

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, the description and schema together cover the parameter's meaning and valid values. However, the lack of behavioral context (e.g., persistence, immediate effect) and absence of output schema limit completeness. A score of 3 reflects adequate but not thorough coverage.

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 meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains the parameter's role ('yaw FF hold after stick release') and provides the default value. This helps an agent understand the parameter's semantics.

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 action ('Set') and the specific resource ('feedforward_yaw_hold_time'), and provides context that it is a duration in milliseconds for the yaw FF hold after stick release. This distinguishes it from siblings like set_feedforward_yaw_hold_gain.

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?

While there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'alternatives,' the description is self-contained for a simple parameter setter. The name and context from siblings (e.g., set_feedforward_yaw_hold_gain) provide implicit differentiation. A score of 4 is appropriate because the description implies its use for tuning yaw feedforward hold time.

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