afg2125_set_output

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

The description discloses an important behavioral trait beyond the annotations: enabling the output is gated by a confirmation requirement, while disabling is unconditional. This adds safety context that the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) do not convey. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and adds a necessary caveat. Every clause adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 simplicity (2 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main usage policy. However, it leaves ambiguity about parameter semantics and does not explain what happens if confirm_enable is false when enabling, making it only minimally adequate for an agent to invoke correctly without further insight.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate, but it does not explicitly explain the roles of the 'enabled' and 'confirm_enable' parameters. The phrase 'enable it only after explicit load and cabling confirmation' hints at confirm_enable's purpose but does not directly map to the parameters or clarify their interplay.

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: to disable or enable the output, with a specific condition for enabling. It distinguishes this tool from sibling set_output tools by adding the safety requirement of load and cabling confirmation, which is unique to this instrument.

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 context on when to use the tool: disabling can be done freely, while enabling should only occur after explicit load and cabling confirmation. This implies a when-not-to-use condition, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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