set_pwr_on_arm_grace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses the value type and range (UINT8, 0–30, default: 5) and the effect (blocks arming). However, it does not specify whether changes take effect immediately or after reboot, or any potential side effects.

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 a single sentence with a brief parenthetical note on type/range. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no superfluous 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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose, value constraints, and why it matters. It could mention persistence or reboot requirement, but given the simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, describing it as 'Value for pwr_on_arm_grace (UINT8, 0–30)'. The description adds 'UINT8, 0–30, default: 5' which overlaps with the schema, but provides context by explaining the parameter's role in the grace period.

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 function using a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('pwr_on_arm_grace'), and explains its purpose: 'Grace period after power-on during which arming is blocked (prevents arming before receiver binds).' This distinguishes it from sibling tools, many of which are getters or other setters.

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 context ('prevents arming before receiver binds') but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It is adequate for a straightforward setter, but lacks comparative advice or exclusions.

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