set_gyro_lpf1_static_hz

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the parameter is a cutoff frequency, can be disabled, and has a default. However, it does not mention whether changes take effect immediately, require reboot, or persist across sessions. The range is implied as UINT16 but the schema allows huge integers, creating ambiguity.

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 totaling 25 words. Every sentence adds value—the first identifies the tool and parameter, the second gives usage guidance and the default. No fluff or 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 single-parameter setter with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter meaning, a usage hint, and default. Missing are units (Hz) and explicit valid range (uint16), but the context from the name and schema partially address these. Overall fairly complete.

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 provides only a generic description 'Value for gyro_lpf1_static_hz (UINT16)'. The description adds significant meaning: it explains the value as a static cutoff, that 0 disables, and notes the default of 250. This goes beyond the schema, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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 identifies the action (set) and the resource (gyro_lpf1_static_hz), explaining it as the static cutoff for LPF1. It adds specificity by noting the option to disable with 0 and recommending it with RPM filtering. While not explicitly contrasting with siblings like set_gyro_lpf1_dyn_expo, the naming and parameter make it distinguishable.

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 one usage guideline: setting to 0 to disable, recommended with RPM filtering. However, it does not explain when to set non-zero values, typical ranges, or compare with alternative filters like LPF2 or notch filters. No explicit 'when to use this vs others'.

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