set_gyro_notch2_cutoff

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

No annotations are provided. The description indicates a write operation ('Set') but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as persistence, required privileges, effect on flight performance, or whether the change takes effect immediately or after reboot. The minimal description fails to compensate for the lack of annotations.

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, consisting of a single sentence that conveys the essential information without redundancy. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

The description provides the parameter type and default, but given the tool's place in a large set of similar setters (e.g., set_gyro_notch1_cutoff, set_dterm_notch_cutoff), it lacks explanation of the notch filter hierarchy or how cutoff relates to center frequency. The tool has no output schema, so the description could have added return value info, but it does not. For a simple parameter setter, it is minimally adequate.

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 input schema describes the 'value' parameter as an integer with a wide range. The description adds meaningful context: '[UINT16, default: 0]', clarifying the expected unsigned 16-bit integer type and default value, which is not apparent from the schema alone. Since schema coverage is 100%, this additional information is beneficial.

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 states 'Set gyro_notch2_cutoff: Bandwidth of gyro notch 2.' It identifies the verb and resource but is somewhat tautological, restating the tool name without explaining what 'bandwidth of gyro notch 2' means in the context of flight control filtering. Sibling tools like set_gyro_notch1_cutoff exist, but no differentiation is provided.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many similar setter tools (e.g., set_dterm_notch_cutoff, set_gyro_notch1_hz), and the description offers no criteria for selection or context about the parameter's role in the system.

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