set_i_roll

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes the effect of the parameter value on behavior, but omits operational details such as whether the setting is immediately applied, requires a reboot, or is persistent. This is a gap for a write operation.

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 dense sentence that packs purpose, effects, and default. It is front-loaded with the tool name and zero wasted words.

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 tool is simple (1 parameter, no output schema). The description explains the parameter's effect and default, but does not mention return value or persistence behavior. This is mostly complete for an experienced user, but an agent might benefit from knowing the set operation is acknowledged.

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% description coverage for the single parameter, providing baseline 3. The description adds the default value (80) and the tuning implications (drift/wobble), which go beyond the schema's 'Value for i_roll (UINT8)'.

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 the roll I gain, correcting accumulated angle error and maintaining attitude. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_i_pitch by specifying 'Roll I gain' and providing unique tuning consequences (drift vs. wobble).

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 tuning guidance (too low → drift, too high → slow post-flip wobble) and mentions the default value 80. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like set_i_pitch or set_d_roll, leaving the decision when to use this tool vs. others somewhat implied.

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