set_i2c2_clockspeed_khz

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It states the action, requirement, and default but omits crucial details like persistence (whether change survives reboot), immediate effect vs. reboot required, and bounds (schema range contradicts UINT16 type). This leaves ambiguity for the agent.

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 extremely concise, packing essential information (action, resource, unit, requirement, data type, default) into two short phrases with no superfluous content. Every piece contributes to understanding.

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 description covers basic semantics but lacks completeness for operational context: no mention of whether the setting takes effect immediately or after reboot, no validation details (despite schema range v. UINT16 discrepancy), and no indication of return behavior (silent success or error). For a setter with no output schema, these gaps hinder agent confidence.

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 100% with a basic description. The tool description adds meaningful value: unit (kHz), default (800), and data type (UINT16), which enhance understanding beyond the schema alone. The requirement note also provides context for the parameter.

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 that this tool sets the clock speed of I2C bus 2 in kHz. It uniquely identifies the resource and action, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_i2c2_clockspeed_khz and set_i2c1_clockspeed_khz.

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 includes a prerequisite (USE_I2C_DEVICE_2) and provides default value and unit, offering implicit context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., getter) or specify when to prefer this over other I2C clock speed setters.

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