apply_aircraft_setup

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It meticulously describes the atomic operation: commands are applied in one CLI session, backed up first, saved to EEPROM, reboots, auto-reconnects, verifies by read-back, and rolls back all changes on failure. This is exceptional transparency.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. The subsequent paragraphs add essential behavioral detail (atomicity, rollback, verification), prerequisites (gates), and parameter explanation (Args). Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 (atomic apply, save, reboot, rollback) and the absence of annotations or output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers prerequisites, side effects, failure handling, and the parameter's role. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 schema provides zero description coverage for the 'confirm' parameter, but the description's 'Args' section fully explains it: 'True to apply+save+reboot. Default False = dry-run (shows commands).' This completely compensates for the lack of schema documentation, adding precise semantics that the schema omits.

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's function: 'Apply the declared aircraft profile to the FC, then save and reboot.' This specifies a concrete verb+resource+outcome, and distinguishes it from siblings like define_aircraft (which defines the profile) and save_and_reboot (which is generic). It also highlights the atomic nature of the operation, adding further clarity.

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 'Gates' that must be met: a profile must be defined, the FC must be connected and not armed, and confirm=True is required. It also notes that dry-run is the default. While it clearly states prerequisites and the safe default, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when to use them instead, so it falls just short of a 5.

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