write_analog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses clamping behavior, the fact that both requested and actual voltages are returned, that clamping is flagged, and that the tool 'never silently changes the value the model asked for' — excellent transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful behavioral detail. No fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple (2 parameters) and has an output schema, so the description covers the main behavioral aspects well. The lack of parameter-specific details (units, channel format) is a minor gap, but overall the description is complete for a model to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 adds 'DC voltage' semantics to the voltage parameter but does not explain units, channel format, or the actual AO_VOLTAGE_LIMITS values. The channel parameter receives no additional meaning beyond its name.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('set') and resource ('analog output channel') plus the action ('to a DC voltage'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_analog and write_digital.

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?

Clear context is provided: this tool is for setting analog output channels. However, there are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references, though the action is unambiguous enough that an agent can infer when to use it.

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