set_failsafe

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses atomic write behavior (backup → apply → save+reboot), dry-run default, partial-argument changes, rollback on invalid values, and unit conversion (×10 for iNAV). This is exemplary behavioral disclosure.

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 with a front-loaded summary, an Args list, and a Gates section. Every sentence adds essential information; there is no redundancy or filler. The length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, all parameter semantics, gates, failure behavior, conversion details, and alternatives to sibling tools. The agent has everything needed to invoke 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates completely. Each parameter is explained with meaning, constraints, and units: procedure (firmware-dependent tokens, rollback), throttle_us (clamped 1000–2000), delay_s (guard time, ×10 conversion), off_delay_s (stage time, ×10), confirm (apply vs dry-run).

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: "Set the core failsafe behaviour," and immediately clarifies the atomic CLI write mechanism. It distinguishes itself from sibling failsafe knobs by pointing to cli('set failsafe_...') for distances/angles, and from check_failsafe which is for checking.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: "dry-run by default" and when to use confirm=True. It states alternatives for other failsafe knobs (use cli), conditions under which RTH fails ('RTH without GPS will not work — use DROP/LAND'), and preconditions ('Gates: connected, not armed, auto-backup').

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