Set a custom engineering label for a load in the single-line diagram while keeping the original OpenDSS element name. Use it to show clearer load identifiers without renaming network components.
Define un rótulo de ingeniería sin renombrar el elemento OpenDSS.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| etiqueta | Yes | ||
| nombre_carga | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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. It discloses one behavioral trait — it does not rename the OpenDSS element — but omits permissions, reversibility, persistence, or side effects. Insufficient for a mutation-style configuration tool.
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?
One efficient sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Define'. No wasted words, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
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 configuration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain parameter expectations and relationship to sibling tools. It covers only the non-renaming side effect, leaving key context missing.
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 0% and the description never mentions 'nombre_carga' or 'etiqueta'. Parameter names are self-descriptive in Spanish, but the description adds no semantic detail such as expected format or whether 'etiqueta' is an arbitrary display string.
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?
States the verb 'Define' and the resource 'rótulo de ingeniería', and clarifies it does not rename the OpenDSS element. It distinguishes from a rename operation but does not name specific siblings or explicitly scope to the load element, which is only implied by the tool name.
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?
No indication of when to use this instead of configurar_tipo_carga_unifilar, configurar_bus_unifilar, or other unifilar configuration tools. The non-renaming clause hints at a boundary but is not framed as usage guidance or tied to a condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.