cmw_meas_set_user_margin

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation ('Set') but does not mention side effects, persistence, connection requirements, or whether the margin resets measurements. The operation's impact on analyzer state is entirely 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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. Every word contributes to the core meaning, and the verb is placed first. It is appropriately concise for a simple setter operation.

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 simple, but the description lacks essential context such as how host and port are used, whether a prior connection is required, or what happens once the margin is set. With no annotations and no output schema, the description does not provide enough information for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. margin_db is documented as 'User margin in dB', but host and port are left unexplained. The description merely repeats the unit information already present in the schema, failing to compensate for the undocumented 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 uses a specific verb ('Set') with a clear resource ('GPRF analyzer user margin') and unit ('dB'), distinguishing it from other cmw_meas_set_* tools. It does not elaborate on what the margin affects, but the core purpose is 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cmw_meas_set_trigger or cmw_meas_set_power_filter. The description does not mention prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions, leaving the tool to be selected by name alone.

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