Switch the output

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the soft-start wait (~1.1 s, ~1.5 s total), the DELAY/REV >20 s early-return behavior, the immediate shutdown when a bench voltage limit is exceeded (UNSAFE_OPERATION), and that the actual voltage is whatever the supply currently enforces. It does not describe the call's return value or authentication requirements.

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 front-loaded with the on/off action and then layers timing, safety, and caution details. It is dense but every sentence carries operational value; parenthetical asides are compact and relevant rather than wasteful.

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?

For a hardware control tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers timing, safety limits, and preconditions well. What remains thin is the return value after the call completes and any permission or error semantics beyond UNSAFE_OPERATION, so it is strong but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents wait, max_wall, and wait_timeout. The description adds timing context that maps to the wait behavior (soft start + DELAY/REV + 1.5 s) but does not independently explain each parameter's syntax or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: switching the output on or off, with scope details like soft-start timing and DELAY/REV behavior. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast itself with them, though it references status.vout_v, which gives partial differentiation.

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?

It gives clear usage context and explicit exclusions: check what is connected before switching on, and do not use while the supply's settings menu is open. It also describes the bench-voltage-limit behavior that triggers UNSAFE_OPERATION. It stops short of naming alternative tools for adjacent operations.

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