Change settings

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the safe application order (output-above protections, setpoints, then output-dependent protections), the wait-for-settled behavior, explicit refusal conditions (bench limits, OVP margin, OVP/OCP at current terminal values, OPP/OTP at present power/temperature), and the UNSAFE_OPERATION/NOT_APPLIED error codes.

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?

Everything is crammed into a single dense paragraph, and key clauses like 'OVP closer than max(0.2 V, 1.5 %) above VSET (given now or as sent last)' are compressed to the point of being hard to parse. It also restates the OVP-vs-VSET margin rule that the schema already documents, so some content does not earn its place.

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 mutation tool with 11 optional parameters and no output schema, it covers ordering, safety refusals, screen restrictions, and post-switch-on verification (referencing vout_v). It stops short of describing the success return shape or which fields confirm each applied setting, which matters given there is no output schema.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description still adds value by explaining cross-parameter relationships (OVP margin relative to VSET 'given now or as sent last', the wait flag's settling semantics) that the per-parameter schema text states only in isolation. It does not say whether omitted parameters are left unchanged, which is the main semantic gap for an 11-param partial-update tool.

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 concrete verb-plus-resource framing ('Send settings in a safe order') and enumerates the actual fields involved (VSET/ISET/OVP/OCP/DELAY/REV), so an agent can tell this configures power-supply setpoints and protections. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like 'output' or 'param_list', leaving that differentiation implicit.

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 real conditional guidance: with the output on, a VSET the output does not follow yields NOT_APPLIED; with the output off nothing can be verified, so check vout_v after switching on. What's missing is explicit routing to alternatives ('use output to enable the rail first'), so the agent must infer sibling usage.

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