set_motor_output_limit

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

The description discloses the tool caps per-motor output and provides a default value. Since no annotations exist, it bears full responsibility. However, it does not mention range limits (0-100%), whether changes take effect immediately or require a reboot, or any safety notes. A score of 3 is appropriate—adequate but with gaps.

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—two sentences with a clear front-loaded purpose, an example, and type/default info. No filler text; every sentence earns its place.

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 simple nature of this tool (one integer parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and the parameter's purpose. It could add the valid range or mention persistence, but overall it is well above minimal.

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% for the single parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating the default value (100) and implicitly indicating the unit (percentage) via context, which enhances understanding beyond the schema's basic type hint.

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's purpose: 'Caps per-motor output as a percentage.' It provides a concrete example (6S on 4S build) that distinguishes it from other set_ tools, 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?

Explicit usage guidance is given: 'Use when running higher cell count than motors are rated for (e.g. 6S on a 4S build → set to ~66%).' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke the tool, which is rare and highly useful.

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