set_rssi_src_frame_errors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the type (INT8) and default (OFF) but does not mention side effects, persistence, validation, or return behavior. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 a single sentence plus a parenthetical note, making it very concise. It is front-loaded with the purpose and usage context. However, it could benefit from better separation of sections for clarity, but it is not wasteful.

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 and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and usage context. No critical information is missing, though more behavioral details could improve completeness.

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 the parameter description 'Value for rssi_src_frame_errors (INT8).' The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. No extra details like allowed range or format are provided.

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 tool sets a parameter to derive RSSI from frame error rate, and specifies the use case for receivers that do not report RSSI directly. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_rssi_src_frame_errors or other set_ commands.

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 provides clear context: 'for receivers that do not report RSSI directly.' This tells the agent when to use this tool, implying an alternative is receivers that do report RSSI directly. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or state 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.