cmw_meas_set_expected_power

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, permissions, or state changes. It only states the action and unit, but says nothing about whether this is a write operation (obvious from 'set'), how it affects the current measurement setup, whether it requires a prior configuration, or what the return value is. This is a minimal disclosure.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the verb and target. It contains no fluff or repetition, and every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is a simple setter, and the description covers the core purpose. However, it omits any details about how host/port are used, whether the measurement must be configured before setting expected power, or what the response indicates. Given the available sibling tools (e.g., cmw_meas_configure_power), a bit more context would be helpful, but this level is minimally viable.

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 only 33% (power_dbm described, host and port not). The description adds the context 'in dBm' reinforcing the power_dbm parameter, but it does not explain the host and port parameters. Given the low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it fails to do so for the majority of parameters.

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 ('Set'), the resource ('expected input power for GPRF analyzer'), and the unit ('in dBm'). This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like cmw_bt_set_expected_power and cmw_wlan_set_expected_power, which target different radios.

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 usage context through 'for GPRF analyzer', but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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