sdg1062x_set_output_polarity

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

With all annotations false, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the prerequisite that output must be disabled, but does not state what happens if output is enabled, nor any side effects or return behavior. This leaves a significant transparency gap.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and object, no unnecessary words.

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 is simple, but the lack of annotation support and parameter detail makes the description minimally complete. It states purpose and a key precondition, but not enough for a new agent to invoke confidently without surrounding context.

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 no descriptions for the two required parameters. The description clarifies that 'polarity' accepts normal or inverted, but does not elaborate on valid string values or define the channel parameter (e.g., range). Partial compensation for low schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('channel polarity'), and specifies the two possible states ('normal or inverted') plus condition ('while output is disabled'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that set other output parameters.

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 a clear usage context ('while output is disabled') but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives among siblings. No exclusions are given, but the context is sufficient to guide usage.

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