psu_set_current

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the core mutation and adds useful constraints (channel 1-3, current in amps), but it does not mention side effects, prerequisites, immediacy, or persistence of the setting.

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 brief, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes only the necessary parameter details. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple two-parameter setter with an output schema, the description covers the essential call details: what to set, which channel, and in what unit. It does not mention current limits or output-state prerequisites, but these are not needed for basic 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by documenting both parameters: channel valid values (1, 2, or 3) and current unit (amps). It lacks current range or resolution details, but provides enough to construct a valid call.

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 action and resource: 'Set the output current limit on a power supply channel.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like psu_set_voltage, psu_get_current, and psu_set_ocp.

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 intended usage is implied by the description: call this when you need to set a channel's current limit. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or how it differs from related tools such as psu_set_ocp or psu_set_voltage.

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