set_power

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it writes to JMRI, checks current state before sending, re-reads after 1 second for confirmation, the possibility of false confirmed, the bug with re-POSTing, exhibition mode behavior, and potential outdated JMRI version issues. This is highly transparent.

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 well-structured with paragraphs for arguments, behavior, safe calling, and exhibition mode. While every sentence adds value, it is slightly verbose. However, the structure aids readability.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description covers behavior, edge cases (exhibition mode, JMRI bug), error conditions (outdated version), and the nature of the return (confirmed flag). It is sufficiently 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 0%, but the description adds significant meaning: for 'system', it explains it can be a name, prefix, or fragment, is case-insensitive, and can be omitted for default. For 'turn_on', it clarifies True/False meanings. This exceeds what the schema provides.

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 'Turn a DCC system's power ON or OFF, and report the state actually observed.' This is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_power (read-only) and power_off_all/power_on_all (apply to all systems).

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 for when to use the tool (to control power for a specific system) and notes special cases like exhibition mode where turn_on=True is refused. It also mentions safe repeated calling. However, it does not explicitly exclude usage when other tools like power_off_all might be more appropriate.

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