cmw_set_signal_path

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Set... scenario' without mentioning that it changes instrument state, persists settings, requires a connection, or has any side effects. The term 'combined' is ambiguous relative to the enum value 'cspath,' adding confusion rather than clarity.

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 concise sentence, front-loading the core action and target. However, it uses 'combined' while the schema uses 'cspath,' which may confuse and reduce the efficiency of the concise phrasing. Minor waste but mostly well-structured.

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 setter with no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to explain the effect and context. It fails to describe what the signal path scenario does, how it impacts measurements, or what the arguments (host/port) mean. Sibling tools like cmw_get_signal_path exist but are not referenced, leaving the overall context incomplete.

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 low (33%). The description partially clarifies the 'scenario' parameter by mapping 'standalone or combined' to the enum values, but it does not explain 'cspath' explicitly. More importantly, 'host' and 'port' are not described at all in either the schema or the description, leaving the agent without guidance on these 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') and the target resource ('GPRF measurement signal path scenario'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like cmw_get_signal_path which retrieves the path. The addition of '(standalone or combined)' specifies the key parameter's possible values, making the purpose 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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cmw_get_signal_path or cmw_rf_route_set. There are no prerequisites, side effects, or context about setup steps. The only implied usage is from the verb 'set,' but the description does not explicitly state when to invoke this tool.

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