cmw_set_external_attenuation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses a non-obvious side effect (tightening safety clamps) and the consequence of not setting it (every absolute power reading is wrong). It also explains the per-application behavior which is a behavioral nuance beyond the schema.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, consequence, and application scope/side effect. The message is front-loaded and free of filler.

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?

Covers purpose, usage guidance, per-application scope, and a side effect. It lacks explicit mention of whether existing attenuation values are overwritten or how to verify the setting, but for a setter with no output schema, it is relatively complete.

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 40% (applications and attenuation_db have descriptions). The description reinforces these with added meaning ('pass the applications you are measuring with', path loss semantics) but does not address host, port, or meas_instance, leaving a partial gap in compensating for low coverage.

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 the specific verb 'Declare' and identifies the exact resource: cable and fixture loss between the CMW connector and the DUT. It clearly distinguishes this setter from the sibling getter by focusing on making power readings refer to the DUT rather than the instrument.

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 explicitly instructs the user to pass the applications being measured, warning that declaring for GPRF does nothing for WLAN or Bluetooth. This gives clear when-to-use context, though it does not name specific alternative tools (e.g., cmw_get_external_attenuation for verification).

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