vna_calibration_start

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the automatic disabling of port extension, the reason (incorrect coefficients), and the return flag indicating whether any ports were affected. This is valuable side-effect transparency, though it does not mention other potential behaviors like clearing existing calibration data or blocking concurrent operations.

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 three focused sentences. It leads with the core action, then explains an important side effect and its rationale, and finally notes the return flag. Every sentence adds distinct value without redundancy.

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 state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers key aspects but leaves gaps. It does not explain what 'start calibration' entails in terms of workflow, what the method parameter affects, or whether additional steps (measuring standards, applying calibration) are expected. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 only 33%, so the description needed to compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention 'method', 'host', or 'port' at all. The method enum is somewhat self-documenting, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the required 'method' parameter under-explained.

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 uses the specific verb 'Start' with the resource 'calibration procedure', clearly distinguishing this from related calibration tools like vna_calibration_status, vna_calibration_measure_standard, and vna_calibration_apply. It also adds a key behavioral detail about disabling port extensions, reinforcing the tool's unique role.

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 clearly implies this is the initial step in a calibration workflow, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vna_calibration_measure_standard or vna_calibration_apply. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or mention of prerequisites like an established connection.

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