set_rf_output

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

Annotations already declare idempotent, non-destructive, non-read-only. The description adds real context beyond them: enabling reuses the current frequency/level/modulation, disabling preserves the waveform, and the call verifies the resulting enable state. It does not state what the verification returns or any hardware interlock behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then precondition, then side-effect note. No filler and each sentence carries distinct information.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool this covers the essentials: action, precondition, state dependencies, and confirmation behavior. Only the exact form of the verified state/timing of the switch is unstated, which is minor.

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 coverage is 0% and the single boolean 'enabled' is undocumented in the schema. The description compensates by making the boolean's meaning explicit (on/off) and explaining the state dependencies of each branch, which is more than the schema provides.

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 and resource: turning the RF OUTPUT enable state on or off, plus verifying that state. This is clearly distinct from tuning siblings like set_rf (frequency/level) or get_status (read-only inspection).

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?

Gives an explicit precondition: read status first when frequency, level, and modulation are unknown, which routes the agent to get_status. It does not name set_rf as an alternative or explain when RF output should be enabled versus left off, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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