set_rpm_limit_i

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the data type (UINT16), valid range (0–1000), default value (10), and the prerequisite. However, it does not explain whether the change takes effect immediately, requires a reboot, or has side effects (e.g., can cause oscillations). For a simple parameter setter, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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: two short sentences and a parenthetical. Front-loaded with the action ('Set rpm_limit_i'). Every part earns its place: the purpose, the prerequisite, and the technical constraints (UINT16, range, default). No extraneous information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: what the parameter does, its type and limits, default, and a required feature flag. It does not explain the effect of changing the gain or how it interacts with other RPM limiter settings, but for a parameter setter in a configuration tool set, this 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% (one parameter: value). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the value is the I gain for the RPM limiter controller and specifying the default value (10). The schema only repeats the type and range. This clarifies the parameter's role and initial value.

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?

Clearly states it sets the I gain for the RPM limiter controller, using a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('rpm_limit_i'). However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like set_rpm_limit_p or set_rpm_limit_d, which set other gain components for the same controller.

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?

Mentions a prerequisite (USE_RPM_LIMIT must be enabled) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other RPM limiter gains or the base set_rpm_limit). No context on typical scenarios or preferences.

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