set_nav

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: atomic write, partial updates, dry-run semantics, confirmation trigger involving save and reboot, and GPS/home fix prerequisites. This goes well beyond a basic 'set parameters' statement.

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 compact but packs in essential behavioral, parameter, and gate information. Each section earns its place, though it is longer than strictly necessary due to the args list.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, this description covers all needed context: tool purpose, parameter semantics, execution model, and preconditions. An agent can correctly select and invoke this tool without additional information.

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 has zero descriptions, but the Args list compensates fully: each parameter gets its unit, underlying CLI parameter name, and allowed values where applicable (e.g., rth_allow_landing). This is a model of parameter documentation.

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 'Set core fixed-wing navigation / RTH parameters (atomic CLI write)', which uses a specific verb and resource. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like set_pid, set_failsafe, and set_flight_mode.

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 clear usage context including the dry-run default, the need for confirm=True to apply, and the operating gates (connected, not armed, auto-backup). It does not explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use this one, but the context is strong.

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