set_min_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the set value is only effective for PWM protocols and is overridden by DSHOT, a key behavioral trait. It also mentions the default value. This adds significant context beyond the schema, though it could note prerequisites (e.g., PWM protocol must be active).

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 that front-loads the name and purpose, then provides essential details (protocols, default). No unnecessary words, every part adds value.

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, the description covers the parameter's meaning, default, and protocol-specific behavior. It implicitly defines the valid range (UINT16) despite the schema's wide range. No output schema is needed; the description is complete for agent decision-making.

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% (param description exists), but the description adds meaning: it defines the parameter as a UINT16 with a default of 1000 and explains what the value represents (PWM when disarmed/zero-throttle). This enriches the bare schema description, earning above baseline.

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 'min_command' parameter, a PWM value for ESCs when disarmed or at zero throttle, specifically for PWM-based protocols. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'set_' tools by naming the exact resource and providing context, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains that this setting applies to PWM-based protocols and notes that for DSHOT it is overridden, giving clear usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the DSHOT note effectively limits its relevance. No alternatives are mentioned, but given the tool's specificity, this is adequate.

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