set_rc_smoothing_auto_factor

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a write operation, explains the effect of the parameter, mentions the data type (UINT8) and default value (30). This is good transparency for a simple setter, though it does not cover potential side effects or persistence.

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?

Two sentences and a bracketed note, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by effect and type/default. Every sentence earns its place, no waste.

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 single-parameter setter with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, effect, type, and default. It does not discuss persistence or save requirements, but these are not critical for a basic set operation.

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% but the description adds significant value by explaining the meaning of the parameter ('higher = smoother but more lag'), specifying the actual constraint as UINT8 (correcting the misleading schema bounds), and stating the default value. This is crucial for correct tool invocation.

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 it sets 'rc_smoothing_auto_factor' and explains what that parameter is ('Auto-smoothing aggressiveness for setpoint channels'). It also distinguishes from siblings by referencing 'setpoint channels' and noting the effect of higher values, which is not present in other set_* tools.

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 hints at usage with 'Higher = smoother but more lag' and 'Preset applies the correct value for your RC link', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_rc_smoothing or get_rc_smoothing. No when-not-to-use or comparison with siblings is provided.

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