write_setpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description discloses that the tool performs validation against safety limits, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on validation failure (rejected? error?), whether the write is immediate or buffered, whether it affects other state, or if specific permissions or connection are required. For a write/mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a moderate 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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The description front-loads the core action and adds the safety-validation qualifier efficiently. Every word earns 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 2-param mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the core purpose and safety validation but leaves open important questions: Does the write persist? What happens on validation failure? Is the value range documented anywhere? Given it's a write operation with safety implications, it could reasonably describe the failure behavior or value-range constraints.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (value = New setpoint value, parameter = Parameter name with examples). The description adds the key constraint that writes are validated against safety limits, which gives context about value constraints. However, it doesn't specify what the safety limits are or how violations are handled, and the examples in the schema ('temperature, pressure, speed') are more helpful than anything in the description.

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 clear verb+resource pair ('Write a setpoint value to the PLC') and adds a distinguishing detail about safety validation. It clearly separates from sibling read-focused tools like read_sensor and get_setpoints. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternative for reading setpoints, which would strengthen 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?

The description implies this is for writing values while siblings handle reading (read_sensor, get_setpoints), so the contrast is implicit. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., connection state), and doesn't name alternatives explicitly. The 'validates against safety limits' hint implies caution but isn't developed into guidance.

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