set_dtm_address

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excellently discloses key behavioral traits: setting gateway/subnet rewrites the project archive, project is reloaded and unsaved, requiring follow-up with build_project and save_project. Also mentions domain mismatch warning.

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 well-structured, front-loading the core purpose then providing necessary details. It is slightly long but every sentence adds value; no redundancy.

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?

Given 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers parameter formats, side effects, and prerequisites well. It doesn't explain return values or error cases, but overall is fairly complete for a mutating tool.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description adds meaning for address (protocol-specific format), gateway (IP domain constraint), and subnet. The 'name' parameter is not explained, but it's reasonably inferable as identifier. Overall good compensation.

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 tool's purpose: setting a slave DTM's bus address, distinguishing between Modbus TCP/EtherNet/IP and fieldbus protocols. It differentiates from siblings like set_network_ip by focusing on DTM address configuration.

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 provides context on when to use the tool (for setting address or optionally gateway/subnet), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It gives a clear usage scenario with protocol-specific details.

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