set_mag_hardware

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a prerequisite (USE_MAG) and a default value (NONE). It does not disclose whether the change is non-destructive, requires a save/reboot, or what happens if the prerequisite is not met. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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: one sentence with a clear starting point ('Set mag_hardware'), followed by an important detail ('NONE = disabled'), a prerequisite, and type/default. Every part adds value without redundancy.

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 parameter-setter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is mostly adequate but incomplete. It fails to list possible values beyond 'NONE' and does not clarify whether the change persists or requires a save/reboot. Given the simplicity of the tool, these gaps are noticeable but not severe.

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 provides 100% coverage with a description ('Value for mag_hardware (UINT8)'). The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it documents that 'NONE = disabled', specifies the default value, and notes the prerequisite. This helps the agent understand the parameter's purpose and valid usage, though it does not list all possible values.

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 mag_hardware: Magnetometer hardware selection' with a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('mag_hardware'). It explains the meaning of the value 'NONE = disabled', which distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_mag_hardware (which retrieves the current value) and calibrate_magnetometer (which performs calibration, not selection).

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires: USE_MAG') but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_mag_hardware or set_mag_declination. The usage context is only implied through the tool name and the prerequisite.

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