vna_set_port_power

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action. It does not mention whether the output is turned on, whether changes are immediate or require a sweep, any side effects on existing settings, or valid power ranges. This provides no transparency into the tool's behavior.

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 short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified and lacks structure to convey usage or context, so while there is no wasted text, it is not appropriately sized for a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain units, valid ranges, connection requirements, return behavior, or how the port parameter interacts with the VNA. This is inadequate for an agent to use effectively.

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 75%, with descriptions for tcp_port, vna_port, and power_dbm. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides; 'per port' aligns with vna_port, but this is already stated in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 power level per port' clearly identifies the action (set) and the target (power level) with scope (per port). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like output_on/off and measurement tools, though it could be more explicit about it being RF output power in dBm.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., connection required), context for use (e.g., before measurements), or situations where this tool is not appropriate.

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