define_aircraft

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

With no annotations present, the description fully discloses behavior: it is an offline planner with no side effects on the FC, generates commands, and returns a plan dict containing profile, commands, summary, and warnings. This gives the agent a clear model of what happens when invoked.

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 long but well-structured with an Args section and Returns section. The first sentences establish the core purpose and usage context, and the parameter list is formatted for quick scanning. Every sentence earns its place given the 9 parameters.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description compensates by documenting all parameters, return values, and workflow integration with apply_aircraft_setup(). It is fully self-contained and leaves no critical gaps for the agent to guess.

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 0%, so the description carries full parameter meaning. It explains every parameter with types, allowed values (e.g., wing_type options, esc_protocol list), defaults, and purpose (e.g., motor_poles default 14 with a verification note). This goes far beyond the raw schema.

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 it 'Defines the aircraft hardware profile and generates a configuration plan,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It differentiates itself from sibling tools by emphasizing it is an OFFLINE planner and instructing to call apply_aircraft_setup() next.

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 says when to use: 'Call it first to review the generated CLI commands, then call apply_aircraft_setup() to apply.' It also states 'no FC connection required,' providing clear context for when it is appropriate and which alternative to use subsequently.

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