psu_set_ovp

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says what the tool sets, not whether it applies immediately, whether the output must be disabled, what side effects occur, or what limits apply.

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 the primary action, followed by a clean Args list. Every sentence contributes necessary information without fluff.

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 tool, the essential namespace and parameter meanings are present, and an output schema exists. However, as a mutating power-supply operation with no annotations, it lacks behavioral context such as voltage limits, immediate effect, or prerequisite output state.

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 Args section adds meaning beyond the raw schema: it specifies channel is 1 or 2 and voltage is in volts. It does not provide a voltage range, but for two parameters with 0% schema coverage, this is solid 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 action ('Set the over-voltage protection threshold') on a specific resource ('a power supply channel'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like psu_set_voltage and psu_set_ocp by naming OVP specifically.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like psu_set_ocp, psu_set_voltage, and psu_set_current, the description does not state conditions or exclusions that would help an agent choose correctly.

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