rws_write_io

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Set', but does not mention that setting I/O values may have physical effects, require specific permissions, or be irreversible. Critical context like side effects or error conditions is absent.

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 very concise at one short sentence, but this comes at the expense of valuable information. It is front-loaded but lacks structure to convey necessary details.

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 the tool has two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It omits return values, error handling, prerequisites, and behavioral context, leaving the agent unable to use the tool confidently.

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%, yet the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not explain what 'signal' (name format, path) or 'value' (range, allowed types) represent, forcing the agent to guess.

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 'Set an I/O signal value via RWS' uses a specific verb (Set) and resource (I/O signal value), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like rws_read_io (reading) and rs_get_io_signals (listing). It is unambiguous and informative for the agent.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rws_write_variable or rs_write_config. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., mastership) or conditions under which this tool is appropriate, leaving the agent without decision-making information.

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