set_simplified_d_max_gain

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. It mentions the parameter type (UINT8) and default value (100), but does not disclose any side effects, whether the change is persistent or requires a reboot, or what happens if an out-of-range value is supplied. For a setting that adjusts flight dynamics, more behavioral context is needed.

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: a single sentence followed by a bracketed type/default note. It is front-loaded with the action ('Set simplified_d_max_gain') and includes essential context. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema). The description covers parameter type and default. However, it lacks any mention of persistence, immediate effects, or validation constraints. For a flight controller parameter setter, an agent might need to know if the value is saved to EEPROM automatically or requires a save command.

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?

The schema already describes the parameter as 'Value for simplified_d_max_gain (UINT8)', covering 100% of parameters. The description adds the default value (100) and implies the uint8 range, which provides additional semantic meaning. This helps the agent understand typical values without consulting external docs.

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 'simplified_d_max_gain' and explains it is a 'D_max scaling slider (dynamic damping ceiling)'. The verb 'Set' combined with the specific parameter name makes the purpose unambiguous. However, among sibling tools like 'set_d_max_gain' and 'set_simplified_d_gain', it could more explicitly differentiate when to use this simplified version versus the non-simplified one, so not a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain when to adjust the simplified D_max gain compared to the regular D_max gain or other PID-related settings. An agent would have no context for choosing this tool from the many 'set_' siblings.

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