set_io

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the two-step behavior (HttpDigitalOutputDriver.set() then .get()), the fact that the same resource_name applies to both set and re-read, and the fallback behavior when resource_name is omitted. This adds valuable context about side effects and result handling. The annotations already indicate mutability/destructiveness, so the description complements rather than repeats them.

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 succinct and front-loaded, starting with the core operation in the first sentence. The second sentence about resource_name is focused and provides necessary parameter context. No extraneous content is present, though the reference to "§11.14" is cryptic without further context. Overall, it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the output schema and annotations, the description covers the main operational context: the set-then-get behavior, the need for an acquired place, and the key resource_name parameter. It is missing the precise meaning of the value parameter (e.g., true = high/on), which is critical for correct invocation. However, the output schema likely handles return values, and the annotations cover safety. The description is nearly complete with one notable gap.

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 carries a heavy burden for parameter explanation. It thoroughly explains resource_name (picking one of several same-class IO resources, same for set and re-read, omission preserves single-resource behavior). However, it does not explain value's boolean semantics (what true/false does to the IO) or elaborate on place beyond 'an acquired place.' The description partially compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions but leaves two of three parameters 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: "Set digital IO on an acquired place, then re-read and return the resulting state." It identifies the specific resource (digital IO on an acquired place) and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_io (which presumably only reads) by explicitly mentioning the set-then-get sequence and the reuse of the same resource_name for both operations.

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 implies usage context: it is for setting digital IO and immediately verifying the result. It explains the resource_name parameter's role (picking among same-class IO resources) and that omitting it preserves single-resource behavior, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like get_io or state when not to use this tool. The guidance is present but not fully explicit about when vs. alternatives.

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