set_flight_mode

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It is outstanding: it states the operation is read-modify-write, creates or modifies an existing slot, is dry-run by default, requires confirm=True, and mentions gates (connected, not armed, auto-backup). It even notes dry-run returns the command only. This is exemplary 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 with a concise opening sentence, followed by key behavioral details, and a clear argument list. Every sentence adds value—no fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema) and the presence of sibling tools, this description is remarkably complete. It covers behavior, parameter semantics, prerequisites, side effects (backup), and return behavior. It provides all the information an agent needs to select and 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 must fully compensate. It does: mode_name is defined as exactly matching list_flight_modes, aux_channel is defined as 1-based with RC channel mapping, range_low and range_high have units and constraints, and confirm has a clear purpose and default. This is comprehensive and adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 the tool's purpose: 'Assign a flight mode to an aux channel range'. It uses a specific verb (assign) and resource (flight mode to aux channel), and distinguishes itself by mentioning the read-modify-write via CLI 'aux' and the dry-run default, setting it apart from sibling tools like clear_flight_mode or assign_switch.

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 explains when to use the tool (to assign or modify a flight mode on an aux channel) and provides critical usage prerequisites: use list_flight_modes for exact mode names, and confirm=True is required to apply. It also notes the dry-run behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would have made it a 5.

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