set_motor_poles

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavioral traits: it sets a UINT8 value, defaults to 14, and warns about consequences of wrong values affecting filter frequency tracking. This goes beyond the input schema by adding type, default, and impact, thus providing excellent transparency.

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 concise with three substantive sentences and one brief bracket annotation. It places the most important information first (what it sets and its criticality), followed by practical advice and consequences. No fluff, every sentence serves a purpose.

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 setter tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, the parameter's meaning, typical usage, and the impact on system behavior. No additional context is needed for an AI agent to use this tool correctly.

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% with one parameter 'value' described as 'Value for motor_poles (UINT8)'. The description adds significant meaning: it explains that the value represents the number of magnetic poles (not stator poles), its criticality for RPM filters, the typical value for common motors, and the consequence of error. This greatly enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 that the tool sets the number of magnetic poles on the motor bell, specifically distinguishing magnet count from stator count. It explains the critical importance for RPM filter accuracy. This is a specific verb and resource, and since each set_* tool is for a different parameter, it is sufficiently distinguished from siblings.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: when configuring motor poles for RPM filter accuracy. It includes a typical value (14 for 5" motors) and a warning about incorrect values leading to wrong filter tracking. Although no direct comparison to alternative tools, the context is sufficient for an AI agent to understand when to invoke this tool.

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