deposit_value

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The term 'Force-deposit' implies an overriding action, but the description does not explicitly state that this modifies simulation state, requires cleanup, or whether it is destructive/reversible. Value format examples partially compensate but do not address operational semantics.

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 compact at three lines, with the purpose statement front-loaded and parameter details structured efficiently under 'Args:'. The dense formatting trades slight readability for precision, with zero redundant content.

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?

While the input parameters are adequately documented and an output schema exists (covering return values), the description lacks safety disclosures typical for state-modifying simulation tools. Without annotations declaring destructiveHint or readOnlyHint, the description should explicitly warn that this operation alters simulation behavior.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively compensates by providing 'Full hierarchical signal path' semantics for the signal parameter and concrete HDL literal examples ('1'b1', '8'hFF') for the value parameter. This adds critical type and format information absent from the raw schema.

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 uses specific domain terminology ('Force-deposit') and identifies the target resource ('signal'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_signal_value or describe_signal. However, it assumes familiarity with HDL simulation terminology without clarifying that 'force' implies overriding natural signal drivers.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like an active simulator connection. It fails to mention the sibling 'release_signal' tool that likely reverses this operation, leaving agents unaware of the lifecycle management required.

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