psu_set_ocp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states the mutating operation without disclosing side effects, persistence, whether the change is applied immediately, or how invalid thresholds are handled.

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 compact and front-loaded, with a one-sentence action statement followed by a minimal Args list. Every sentence earns its place by adding parameter semantics.

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, the description is mostly complete: it explains what the tool does and documents both arguments with useful specifics. The main gap is a valid current range, but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the Args section is essential and valuable: it clarifies channel as 1 or 2 and current as OCP threshold in amps. It does not specify current range or resolution, but the core meaning is well conveyed.

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 ('Set'), a precise resource ('over-current protection threshold'), and the scope ('power supply channel'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like psu_set_current and psu_set_ovp.

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 operation itself implies when it should be used: when configuring the over-current protection threshold on a channel. However, it gives no explicit guidance about alternatives, preconditions (e.g., output state), or when not to use it.

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