set_power

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

Despite annotations covering the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description adds substantial specifics: it forces waveform=SINE, DC offset=0, duty=50, preserves enabled state unless supplied, folds measured cable loss into the predicted dBm, and notes it reads registers rather than remeasuring with the scope. This is exactly the beyond-annotation context an agent needs.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first sentence and each following sentence carries distinct constraint information (prerequisites, side effects, measurement caveat). Dense but nearly every clause earns its place; slightly heavy phrasing costs it the top mark.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, applied defaults, state preservation, and the measurement caveat. It stops short of describing failure/error outcomes, but the essential calling context is present.

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?

With 0% schema coverage the description must compensate, and it explains frequency/amplitude, the predicted-dBm meaning of power, and that enabled is preserved unless supplied. The channel parameter is only indirectly implied by 'matching serial number', so one parameter remains underspecified.

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 (Set), a precise resource (calibrated sine power into a physical 50-ohm load), and the mechanism (measured table / register readback). This clearly distinguishes it from preview_power (predicts without applying) and configure_channel (general configuration).

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 real prerequisites and exclusions: 'Requires wave mode and matching serial number' and 'other loads/waveforms are unsupported.' It establishes when the tool is valid, though it never explicitly names preview_power as the alternative for a dry-run.

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