mcp_gpio_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose non-obvious semantics: the pin reverts to its previous state after the duration, duration is clamped to a configured 'max', and 'max' is used as a default. However, it omits error behavior for invalid pins, idempotency, hardware risk, and permission requirements for a write operation.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and value options before the conditional duration rules. Every clause adds information, though the second sentence is long and could be split for readability.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the main behavioral semantics well but leaves gaps: no return/confirmation info, no error handling, and no indication of whether the write is persistent or stateful beyond the duration rule.

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 must compensate, and it does for the key parameters: it enumerates the valid 'value' strings ('0','1','on','off','toggle') that the bare string schema leaves unconstrained, and explains 'duration' semantics including clamping and defaulting. It does not clarify 'name_or_gpio' beyond naming.

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?

States a specific verb ('Write') and resource ('a value to a GPIO pin') and enumerates the accepted value strings, so an agent can immediately distinguish this mutation tool from siblings like mcp_gpio_read or mcp_gpio_config.

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?

It explains the duration parameter's behavior and clamping, which implies intended usage for timed pulses, but it never says when to prefer this over mcp_gpio_config or other variants, nor any prerequisites such as pin validity or permissions.

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