vna_correction_on

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Enable error correction' but does not mention side effects, whether it requires a connection, if it affects measurements, or how it relates to calibration state. The tool mutates state, yet no behavioral details are provided.

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 short, which could be seen as concise, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately compact. It lacks critical information about parameters and behavior, so its brevity is a deficiency, not a strength. The single sentence does not earn its place by providing adequate value.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and related siblings (vna_correction_off, calibration tools), this description is incomplete. It does not place the tool in a workflow, explain how to use host/port, or clarify what 'error correction' means in this context. The simplicity of the operation doesn't excuse the missing prerequisites and parameter semantics.

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 schema has 2 parameters (host, port) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what 'host' and 'port' mean for this operation or why they are needed. Since the schema provides no descriptions, the tool description must compensate but completely fails to do so.

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 clearly states the action ('enable') and the resource ('error correction'), which is a specific VNA operation. It distinguishes from sibling vna_correction_off by virtue of the opposite action, though it doesn't explicitly describe the scope or prerequisites. It is concise and non-misleading.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vna_correction_off or vna_calibration_apply. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid calibration) or typical workflow placement. The description simply states the action without context.

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