set_power

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it writes to JMRI, re-reads state after ~1s due to transient POST response, and notes that 'confirmed' may be false if the observed state doesn't match the request. This is comprehensive and honest.

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 a concise intro and clear arg definitions. It could be slightly more concise by omitting the 'Args:' label, but overall it is efficient and front-loaded with purpose.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently covers parameters and behavior, including the re-read and confirmation detail. It implies a return structure with 'confirmed' field, which is adequate for agent use.

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%, so the description carries full burden. It explains 'system' as name/prefix/fragment with case-insensitivity and default behavior, and 'turn_on' as boolean for on/off. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's type/title.

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 turns DCC system power on or off and reports the observed state. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from siblings like get_power (read) and emergency_stop (stop trains).

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 explains when to use the tool (to set power), the argument format (system can be name/prefix/fragment, omit for default), and the behavior after the command. It lacks explicit exclusions but provides sufficient context for correct usage.

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