vna_set_port_extension

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains the effect (compensating for delay and/or loss) but does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting existing port extension settings or that it affects subsequent measurements. It also doesn't mention the vna_port parameter, though the schema does. This is acceptable but not rich.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and purpose. It contains no filler and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 parameterized setter with a schema and sibling tools, the description is adequately complete. It covers the essential purpose and main input semantics. It doesn't explain return values (none expected) or prerequisites, but these are implicitly handled by the surrounding tool context and connection tools. Minor gap: no mention of the specific VNA port, though the schema covers it.

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 coverage is 60%, so the description needs to add some meaning. It highlights the key parameters 'delay and/or loss', mapping to delay_s and loss_db_per_ghz. However, it doesn't clarify host, port, or vna_port beyond what the schema already provides. Overall, it adds moderate value over the schema.

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 states the specific action 'Set port extension' and its purpose 'to compensate for cables/fixtures (delay and/or loss)'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like vna_get_port_extension and vna_clear_port_extension, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool (when needing to compensate for cables/fixtures) but does not explicitly address alternatives or when not to use it. No mention of sibling tools or prerequisites, so while the context is present, direct exclusions are missing.

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