set_spa_yaw_center

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 value is UINT16 with a per-profile default, but it does not mention side effects, permanence, or any impact on flight behavior. More behavioral context is needed for a setter tool.

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 plus a parenthetical note. It is front-loaded with the tool name and purpose, and every word adds value. No wasted language.

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 has one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but not rich. It explains what the tool does and the requirement, but does not explain what SPA is or how this setting affects the system. More context would be beneficial for agents unfamiliar with the domain.

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 well-described parameter. The description adds value beyond the schema by noting the default value and that it is per-profile ('default: 0 (per profile)'). This is helpful context not present in 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 verb 'Set' and the resource 'spa_yaw_center' (setpoint centre value for yaw SPA). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_spa_yaw_center' and other set_ tools by specifying the exact parameter.

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 a requirement condition: 'Requires: USE_WING'. This gives some guidance on when the tool can be used, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., other spa_ setters) or 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.