set_horizon_limit_sticks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It explains the effect (full acro authority at that stick deflection) but does not disclose side effects, persistence behavior, or whether the change takes effect immediately. It adds basic context 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 a single sentence followed by a compact bracketed range/default. Every word adds value; no redundancy. It is front-loaded and highly efficient.

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 numeric parameter with full schema coverage, the description adequately explains the purpose, meaning, range, and default. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly, though it could mention persistence if relevant. No output schema needed.

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%, so baseline 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the parameter's role in horizon mode and providing the default value (75), which is helpful but not essential beyond the schema's range and description.

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 the tool sets 'horizon_limit_sticks' and explains its purpose: 'Stick deflection (%) at which horizon mode gives full acro authority'. It includes the data type and valid range, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_horizon_limit_sticks.

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 implies usage (to adjust the stick deflection threshold) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. For a simple setter in a large family, it lacks explicit context for choosing this tool over others.

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