set_simplified_pitch_d_gain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is a setter (write operation) for a multiplier affecting pitch D term, with a UINT8 type and default value 100. However, it does not mention side effects, persistence, or prerequisites (e.g., disarmed state), leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 a brief type/default note. Every word is informative and front-loaded. No repetition or unnecessary details. It is a model of brevity for a simple setter.

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 straightforward parameter setter, the description covers the essential purpose, parameter meaning, and type/default. It does not mention that the setting is likely for a flight controller PID tuning or that it persists after reboot, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of many similar setters, the description is contextually adequate.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the parameter is an 'Additional D multiplier for pitch only' and specifying its type 'UINT8' and default '100', which are not fully captured in the schema (schema only has wide integer bounds). This provides meaningful context beyond the schema's minimal 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 the verb 'Set' and the specific resource 'simplified_pitch_d_gain'. It adds context by explaining it is an 'Additional D multiplier for pitch only', which differentiates it from similar tools like set_simplified_d_gain (general D gain) and set_simplified_pitch_pi_gain (PI gain).

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used for pitch-specific D gain tuning or that set_simplified_d_gain might be used for overall D gain adjustments. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name.

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