psu_set_output

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the direct effect (enable/disable output) but does not mention behavior for invalid channels, persistence of state, interaction with voltage/current settings, or error handling.

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: one short purpose sentence followed by two one-line parameter definitions. Every sentence contributes necessary information, and the main action is front-loaded.

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 state setter, the description plus input schema provide the essential information needed to call the tool: channel, state, and what the action does. However, missing usage guidance and lack of behavioral nuance around invalid inputs leave it merely adequate rather than fully complete.

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 description fully compensates: 'channel' is documented as 1, 2, or 3, and 'state' is explicitly mapped to True=enabled and False=disabled. This adds concrete semantic meaning beyond the raw schema type names.

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, 'Enable or disable the output of a power supply channel,' and identifies both the resource (output) and the scope (specific channel). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like psu_get_output and psu_set_voltage.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as psu_get_output or psu_set_current. The action is implied by the verb, but no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative-selection cues are provided.

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