set_rpm_limit_d

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavior. It provides the data type (UINT16), valid range (0-100), and default value (8), plus a required condition. It lacks details on whether the change takes effect immediately, requires a save/reboot, or impacts other parameters. The information is adequate but not comprehensive.

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—one sentence with structured parenthetical additions. It front-loads the purpose immediately, then appends the requirement and parameter spec. Every element adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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, range, default, and a prerequisite. It could mention persistence or application (e.g., 'applied immediately' or 'requires a save'), but given the low complexity and common patterns in sibling tools, it is reasonably 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds the default value (8) and the requirement (USE_RPM_LIMIT), which are not in the schema. This extra context helps the agent understand the parameter's typical value and preconditions, going beyond the schema's min/max and basic description.

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 the 'D gain for RPM limiter controller' with a specific verb+resource. The tool name includes the parameter suffix (_d), distinguishing it from siblings like set_rpm_limit_i and set_rpm_limit_p, making its 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?

The description mentions a prerequisite (USE_RPM_LIMIT), which hints at when the tool is effective. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when adjusting I or P gains), nor does it provide guidance on typical usage scenarios. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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