set_gyro_lpf2_static_hz

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the effect (reducing phase delay) and a specific scenario (aliasing condition). It does not detail side effects like increased noise, but for a simple setter this is acceptable. The default value is stated, adding transparency beyond the schema.

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 contain all necessary information. Every clause serves a purpose—identifying the parameter, its effect, a tuning hint, and a special condition. No redundant or extraneous text.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete. It defines the parameter, explains its effect, provides tuning guidance, and notes a specific use case. No additional context is needed for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool.

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 schema only describes the parameter as an integer with bounds. The description adds critical semantics: the purpose (cutoff frequency), how to tune (raise toward 1000 Hz for less phase delay), a special case (set to 0 when gyro rate equals PID rate), and the default value (500). This significantly enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 'Set gyro_lpf2_static_hz: LPF2 cutoff.' This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling getters or other set tools by naming the exact parameter. The additional details about reducing phase delay and the aliasing condition further clarify its purpose.

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 practical guidance: raising toward 1000 Hz reduces phase delay, and setting to 0 is appropriate when gyro rate equals PID rate to avoid aliasing. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or offer alternatives, such as adjusting gyro_lpf1 or dynamic filters.

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