set_gyro_lpf1_dyn_max_hz

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Set' and provides the parameter type and default. It does not disclose side effects such as whether a reboot is required, whether the change is immediate, or any safety implications. Minimal 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 a single sentence that includes the tool name, a brief explanation, and the type/default. Every word is informative and there is no redundancy or wasted space.

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 has only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the essential information (name, type, default). However, it lacks context about how this parameter interacts with other filter settings (e.g., min_hz, type) and what the practical range is. Some additional context would improve confidence in correct usage.

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 has 100% coverage but only restates the parameter name. The description adds value by specifying the type as UINT16 and the default value (500), which is not in the schema. However, it does not explain the valid range, units (Hz are implied by the name but not explicit), or what happens outside expected bounds.

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 that the tool sets 'gyro_lpf1_dyn_max_hz', which is the dynamic LPF1 maximum cutoff frequency at full throttle. This is a specific resource and action. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'set_gyro_lpf1_dyn_min_hz' or 'set_dterm_lpf1_dyn_max_hz', though the name itself is fairly distinctive.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain the relationship between dynamic max and min, or when to adjust gyro vs dterm filters. The description is purely definitional.

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