set_tpa_rate

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the value and default but omits behavioral details: whether change applies immediately, requires reboot, or affects other settings. There is an implicit contradiction: schema allows ±9e15 integer but description says UINT8 (0-255). This is misleading.

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 concise—one sentence plus an example and type/default. It is front-loaded with the action and meaning. However, the structure could be improved by separating the example and note for readability.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a single parameter with minimal schema description, the context is insufficient. It does not explain tpa's role in tuning, the scale of percentage, or consequences of extreme values. Among dozens of set_* siblings, this description leaves a newcomer guessing.

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 description adds rich meaning beyond the schema's generic 'Value for tpa_rate (UINT8)'. It explains the value represents maximum attenuation percentage, gives a concrete example (65 = PIDs at 35% above breakpoint), and states default (65) and type (UINT8). This fully clarifies parameter semantics.

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 tpa_rate, defines it as 'Maximum attenuation percentage at full throttle', and provides an example linking the value to PID percentage above breakpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_tpa_breakpoint or set_tpa_curve_type. However, it assumes knowledge of 'tpa' acronym without explanation.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_tpa_breakpoint, set_tpa_low_rate). The description does not mention prerequisites, context of use, or scenarios to avoid.

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