set_gyro_hardware_lpf

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

No annotations are present, so the description is the sole source. It explains the parameter effect and values but does not disclose potential side effects, whether changes require reboot, or how this setting interacts with other filters. Basic behavioral context is provided 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 extremely concise: two sentences and a parenthetical note. It is front-loaded with the purpose and immediately provides key guidance. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 with one parameter, the description covers purpose, valid values, and default. It does not discuss return values (acceptable for a setter) or verification steps. Given the simplicity and no output schema, it is nearly complete, though it could mention how to confirm the change.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds substantial value by listing valid values (NORMAL, OPTION_1, OPTION_2, EXPERIMENTAL) and explaining their significance and defaults. This enriches the schema's minimal description significantly.

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?

Description clearly states the tool sets the gyro hardware low-pass filter mode. It explains what the parameter controls and lists valid values. While it distinguishes from get_gyro_hardware_lpf, it could more explicitly differentiate from other gyro filter setters like set_gyro_lpf1_static_hz, but the mention of 'hardware' mode provides good context.

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 advises that NORMAL is correct for most builds and alternative options are only for supported sensors. This gives practical usage guidance but falls short of explicitly stating when not to use this tool or comparing it to software filter settings. No prerequisites or alternatives are mentioned.

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