gpio_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: a fallback path that edits the .ioc directly and reloads it, said to produce the same file the GUI writes, which also explains the 'reload' parameter. It omits permissions, failure modes, and whether changes are reversible, so the disclosure is partial.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and value examples, followed by implementation detail. Efficient, with only mild redundancy in the 'same file the GUI writes' clause.

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 4-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the write mechanism but says nothing about return values, error conditions, or how it relates to the neighboring gpio_params/pin_set tools. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema; this establishes the baseline of 3. The description's enumeration of GPIO parameter names adds marginal context about the 'param' argument's accepted values but nothing beyond that.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource ('Set a GPIO parameter') and enumerates the valid parameter names (GPIO_Label, GPIO_Mode, GPIO_PuPd, GPIO_Speed, GPIO_OutputLevel), which lets an agent match the call to the task. It is not explicitly differentiated from siblings like pin_set or ip_param_set, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 explains the internal mechanism (engine vs. direct .ioc edit) but never states when to use this tool versus gpio_params (likely the read counterpart), pin_set, or ip_param_set. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance.

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