voltage_steer

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the description adds some context: hint persists, force_state jumps the machine, variables updates, dry_run can flip. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, irreversibility, or prerequisites despite the destructive nature. It does not contradict the annotations, but the coverage is not thorough.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence overview followed by per-parameter explanations. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, uses backticks for param names to aid scanning, and has no filler or redundant statements.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, zero schema descriptions, a destructive annotation, and an output schema, the description covers the core actions but misses run_id semantics, any warning about destructive consequences, and what the output schema contains. It is usable but not fully complete for safe and correct invocation.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It explains hint, force_state, variables, and dry_run, but omits run_id entirely, leaving its role merely implied by the phrase 'a live run.' This is a partial but incomplete 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 states a specific verb-resource pair: 'Correct a live run without restarting it,' which clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like voltage_stop, voltage_pause, or voltage_run. It also enumerates the effects of each parameter, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Provides a concrete usage scenario for `hint` ('when the actuator is doing something legal but wrong') and explains the function of each parameter (e.g., force_state jumps the machine, dry_run flips). It implies this tool is for mid-run corrections vs. restarting, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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