set_imu_dcm_ki

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the parameter's effect but does not mention any side effects, persistence, whether changes take effect immediately, or if it is safe to modify during flight. This is a significant gap for a setter tool.

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: a single sentence plus a bracketed range/default note. Every word earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded. No 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers the parameter's purpose and effect. However, it lacks behavioral transparency (e.g., immediate or delayed effect, safety during operation), which is needed for full completeness. It also does not reference the get_imu_dcm_ki sibling for reading the current value.

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 description adds valuable context beyond the schema: it explains that non-zero enables slow acc-based yaw correction and notes it is rarely changed. This helps the agent understand the functional impact of the parameter value.

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 it sets 'imu_dcm_ki' (the complementary filter integral gain) and explains its effect (allows slow acc-based yaw correction). This distinguishes it from other set tools like set_imu_dcm_kp or set_acc_calibration, even though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It notes 'Rarely changed,' implying infrequent use, and explains the condition for non-zero values. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_imu_dcm_kp) or describe prerequisites or safety considerations.

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