set_rssi_invert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the data type (INT8) and default (OFF), but does not mention if the change is persistent, requires reboot, or has side effects. The behavior is simple but could be more transparent.

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 very concise, consisting of two short sentences and a brief technical detail. It is front-loaded with the tool name and immediate purpose, with no unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides all necessary context: what it does, why, data type, and default. It is complete for a parameter-setting tool in a large set of similar tools.

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% with one parameter described simply as 'Value for rssi_invert (INT8)'. The description adds value by specifying the default ('default: OFF') and the purpose of the parameter (inverting the signal), going beyond the schema.

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 action ('Set rssi_invert: Invert the RSSI signal'), explains the rationale ('some receivers send inverted RSSI'), and specifies the data type and default. It is distinct from sibling tools like set_rssi_channel and set_rssi_scale.

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 implies usage when a receiver sends inverted RSSI, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites. Lacks guidance on when not to use it.

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