mhs5200_set_invert

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

Annotations already provide non-readOnlyHint (false), destructiveHint (false), and idempotentHint (true). The description confirms it is a write operation that returns a JSON confirmation, adding minimal extra behavioral context. No contradictions exist, but the description does not disclose additional traits like authorization or error behavior.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for the core action, then a clear 'Args' and 'Returns' section. Every sentence serves a purpose, no fluff. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource.

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 simple setter tool with an output schema (mentioned as returning JSON) and good annotations, the description covers the main action, parameters, and return type. It does not mention prerequisites like a prior connection (handled by sibling mhs5200_connect) or error handling, but these are reasonable gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema contains descriptions for both 'channel' and 'inverted' (e.g., 'True to invert (flip vertically) the waveform output'). The description's 'Args' section mirrors this, adding 'False for normal' for inverted. Since schema coverage appears high (descriptions present), the description adds marginal value beyond the schema.

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 begins with 'Invert (flip vertically) the waveform output for a channel.' This is a specific verb (invert) on a clear resource (waveform output for a channel), and the context of siblings (e.g., set_amplitude, set_waveform) makes it distinct. The description also details the purpose via parameter explanation, leaving no ambiguity.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but its narrow purpose (inverting/flipping waveform) clearly distinguishes it from siblings like mhs5200_set_waveform or mhs5200_set_amplitude. The context is clear, but no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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