set_signal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the internal routing and fallback between kuksa.val.v2 and sdv.databroker.v1, and 'Set' implies mutation. But it does not address permission requirements, error behavior, persistence, or physical side effects of writing an actuator value.

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 front-loaded: one purpose sentence, one internal-behavior sentence, then a clean Args list. There is no filler and every sentence adds value.

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 write tool, the description covers objective, execution path, and all parameters, and an output schema exists to describe return values. It is not perfect only because it omits explicit guidance on selecting this tool over publish_value and does not state operational prerequisites for the Kuksa/databroker backends.

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 fully define parameters. It does: path gets a concrete VSS example, value is explained as a string representation, and datatype gets all valid values enumerated. This constitutes complete, useful parameter documentation.

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 a specific verb-resource statement: 'Set the target value of an actuator or attribute signal.' It clearly identifies the resource type and distinguishes itself from read-oriented siblings like get_signal, list_signals, and get_target_values.

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?

Usage is implied: this tool is for writing target values, while the sibling tools are mostly read operations. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer set_signal over the similar publish_value sibling, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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