fly_mission

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses: rejection in readonly mode, return value format, per-waypoint validation against altitude ceiling and soft geofence, precondition with fallback behavior (autopilot takeoff), and mode lifecycle ('mode leaves MISSION when the mission ends'). This is comprehensive and reveals all key behavioral traits.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then preconditions, parameter details, limitations, return value, and sibling usage. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff. It could be slightly tighter (e.g., combining precondition and fallback), but the structure is logical and easy to parse.

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's complexity (one parameter, clear input/output) and the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description covers input structure, preconditions, validation, return value, and post-action guidance. It lacks explicit error cases beyond readonly mode rejection, but overall it provides enough information for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 0% (the schema only shows an array of objects with 'additionalProperties: number'). The description compensates fully by specifying the exact object fields: latitude_deg, longitude_deg, relative_altitude_m, and optional speed_m_s. It also explains validation behavior, adding meaning that the agent cannot infer from the schema alone.

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 starts with 'Upload a waypoint mission and start flying it', which is a specific verb+resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like takeoff (just take off), hold (pause), and return_to_launch (abort) by explicitly mentioning them as alternatives. The scope (waypoint mission vs other actions) is 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 states prerequisites: 'The vehicle must be armed and flying (or the autopilot will take off per its mission config)' and notes rejection in readonly mode. It also directs to use hold or return_to_launch for pausing or aborting. While it doesn't explicitly say 'use this when you have a waypoint list vs. use takeoff for simple ascent', the context and sibling differentiation provide sufficient guidance.

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