vna_correction_off

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the action but does not mention side effects, prerequisites (e.g., a connected instrument), whether correction data is lost, or any impact on subsequent measurements. The word 'Disable' implies a state change, but the consequences are unspecified.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to the meaning, making it appropriately concise for a simple command.

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?

This is a standalone command with two optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description gives only the core action; it lacks context about how to use the tool (host/port), what state changes occur, and what the expected result is. It is incomplete for an agent without domain-specific assumptions.

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 includes 'host' and 'port' with no descriptions, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention these parameters at all, so it fails to compensate for the missing parameter information. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory as connection details, but the tool provides no guidance on optionality or behavior when omitted.

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 a specific verb ('Disable') and resource ('error correction'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool vna_correction_on, which performs the opposite action.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is provided. The phrase 'Disable error correction' merely restates the action without explaining when it should be invoked or how it relates to other VNA tools like vna_correction_on or vna_calibration_status.

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