set_tpa_speed_basic_gravity

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool sets a gravity factor affecting the TPA response curve, specifies the data type (UINT16) and default value (50), and notes the required feature (USE_WING). It does not cover side effects or reversibility, but for a single-parameter setter, this is adequate.

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 that effectively combines the verb ('Set'), the resource, the purpose, the effect, the requirement, and the parameter metadata. It is front-loaded with the key information and contains no superfluous words.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, its effect, prerequisites, and parameter details. It does not explain the broader TPA system, but that is acceptable given the tool's focused role.

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 description coverage is 100%, but the schema only generically describes the parameter as 'Value for tpa_speed_basic_gravity (UINT16)'. The description adds meaningful context: it is a gravity factor, affects response curve vs airspeed, and has a default of 50. This goes beyond the schema, raising the score above baseline 3.

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 gravity factor for BASIC speed TPA and explains its effect on the TPA response curve vs airspeed. The term 'BASIC' distinguishes it from siblings like 'set_tpa_speed_adv_drag_k', making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly notes that USE_WING is required, which guides the agent on a necessary precondition. While it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, the specification 'BASIC speed TPA' implies usage when basic TPA mode is desired, which is clear given the sibling tools with 'ADV' prefixes.

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