arm

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

The description fully compensates for the lack of annotations by disclosing that the tool is 'DANGEROUS on real hardware', that it is 'Rejected in readonly mode', and that it returns specific outputs ('{"armed": true}' or error). It also details required confirmation workflow and preflight checks, providing comprehensive behavioral context.

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 highly concise and well-structured: a bold headline, a warning on the first line, critical usage rules for parameters and readonly behavior, a preflight instruction, and return format—all in just three sentences. Every sentence earns its place.

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 complexity of this dangerous operation, the description covers all critical aspects: action, danger level, parameter semantics, error handling, preconditions, and output format. The output schema exists and matches the return values mentioned. No gaps remain for safe invocation.

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?

Although the schema has 0% description coverage, the description adds essential meaning to the 'confirm' parameter by explaining its role in requiring human approval and explicitly instructing the agent never to set it to true autonomously. This goes well beyond the schema's bare type and default.

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 'Arm the vehicle (spin up motors)' with a specific verb-resource pair ('arm' + 'vehicle'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like 'disarm' and 'takeoff' by explicitly marking this as the arming action and noting its preflight dependencies.

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 explicit usage guidance: it requires human approval via confirm=true, and specifies that the agent must never set confirm=true on its own initiative. It also tells when to use this tool (after checking get_telemetry for GPS fix and battery) and indicates it is rejected in readonly mode, offering clear context for when not to invoke it.

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