cmw_set_port

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and behavior. It only says 'Set' and gives no indication of whether the setting persists, whether it applies to both generator and analyzer ports, or what side effects occur on invocation. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 sentence with no filler, and every word contributes to the meaning. It is appropriately concise for a simple setter, though it lacks any structural breakdown of parameters.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry the full contextual burden. It gives no workflow guidance, no return behavior, and no relation to sibling tools like cmw_rf_route_set or cmw_set_signal_path. For a 4-parameter tool, this is barely above a minimal stub.

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 50%, describing analyzer_port and generator_port but leaving host and port undocumented. The description adds no meaning for host/port and does not explain how the parameters map to the RF port connector, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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') and identifies the resource ('GPRF generator/analyzer RF port connector'), making the basic action clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like cmw_rf_route_set or cmw_set_signal_path, so an agent might not know which tool to pick.

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, nor any workflow context such as prerequisites or typical placement before measurements. The description consists solely of a statement of action.

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