set_datetime

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the SCPI nodes touched, that the clock is read back after setting, and that a ValueError is raised on bad format or out-of-range fields (year 1900..2100). It omits prerequisites such as needing a connected instrument, but the validation and side-effect profile is unusually well covered.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and SCPI context, then the parameter format/constraints. No 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers format, range, and error behavior. What remains unspecified is only the connection/precondition context, which is minor for a simple setter.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and does: it gives the exact format 'YYYY-MM-DD hh:mm:ss', specifies 24-hour time, and states the valid year range 1900..2100 with the failure mode. This fully documents the single required parameter beyond the bare schema.

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+resource ('Set the instrument clock') and even names the underlying SCPI nodes (:SYSTem:DATE / :SYSTem:TIME). It implies the set-vs-get distinction against the sibling get_datetime via 'read it back', but never explicitly names that sibling.

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?

Usage is only implied: you call this when you want to change the clock. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no direct routing to the sibling get_datetime for reading without setting.

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