save_mask_on_instrument

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that the artifact lands on the instrument's own storage as a .pf file and gives the underlying SCPI command, but says nothing about overwrite behavior, required permissions, error handling, or whether the target directory must already exist.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and file type, then the SCPI mnemonic and the sibling reference. Nothing is redundant and every clause adds information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description adequately frames the operation. However, for a write-to-device tool with zero annotation coverage and an undocumented path parameter, more detail on path constraints and overwrite semantics would be needed for full completeness.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single `path` parameter, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning by clarifying the path refers to the instrument's internal storage (`:SAVE:MASK <path>`), but gives no detail on path syntax, allowed locations, or extension handling.

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?

States a specific verb (store) and resource (the pass/fail mask as a .pf file) with the exact SCPI command, so there is no ambiguity about what is written. It explicitly contrasts with the sibling `load_mask_on_instrument`, letting an agent distinguish save from load without opening either schema.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool (to persist a pass/fail mask) and names the complementary tool for retrieving it, giving clear lifecycle context. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance (e.g., mask must be configured first, or the difference from save_setup/save_image_on_instrument).

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