set_rc_smoothing_auto_factor_throttle

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

With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral info: type (UINT8) and default value (30). However, it does not disclose side effects, persistence, or the meaning of 'aggressiveness'. More could be said about the expected range or impact on flight behavior.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence plus a short bracket note. Front-loaded with purpose and type/default. No wasted 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 simple setter with one parameter, the description is largely complete. The presence of a getter sibling fills in reading capability. However, it could mention if the value persists across reboots or if it requires a save/reboot to take effect.

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 describes value as integer with wide bounds. Description adds default (30) and semantic context 'aggressiveness'. This provides useful meaning beyond the schema's minimal description, though explicit valid range (0-255) is not stated.

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 verb 'Set' and the specific resource 'rc_smoothing_auto_factor_throttle', and explains it is 'Auto-smoothing aggressiveness for throttle channel'. This distinguishes it from related siblings like set_rc_smoothing_auto_factor (which likely affects all channels) and set_rc_smoothing.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_rc_smoothing_auto_factor for global setting, or other smoothing parameters). The description lacks context for when adjustments are appropriate.

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