publish_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 behavior disclosure. It clearly communicates that this is a write operation that sets the current value as reported by a sensor/provider and feeds it into the databroker. It stops short of describing side effects, error conditions, or authorization requirements, but core semantics are transparent.

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 compact and well-structured: the core operation is front-loaded, the differentiator from a sibling is stated next, and the argument documentation is concise. Every sentence contributes information not otherwise available in the schema.

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 three-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers the operation, the role, the distinction from set_signal, the concrete use case, and all parameters. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not required from the description. Nothing essential is missing for correct selection and invocation.

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. It does: path is defined as a VSS signal path with an example, value is defined as 'the current value to publish', and datatype is fully enumerated with all accepted type strings. This fully equips the agent to supply correct parameter values.

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 opens with 'Publish a current value for a signal (provider role)', which names a specific verb, resource, and role. It also explicitly contrasts with set_signal by distinguishing 'current value' from 'target', making the tool's purpose unmistakable among siblings.

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 directly says 'Unlike set_signal which sets the *target* for an actuator, publish_value directly sets the *current* value' and instructs 'Use this when you are acting as a data provider feeding sensor readings into the databroker.' This gives explicit when-to-use guidance and names the alternative.

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