change_wave

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

The description discloses that strength is unchanged and lists available waveforms. It mentions a post-use action (stop to describe sensation). However, it does not cover side effects, permissions, or what happens if the channel is invalid. Overall, it is transparent enough.

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 well-structured with sections, front-loaded with purpose. However, it repeats waveform descriptions also present in the schema, making it slightly longer than necessary. Still effective.

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 tool's simplicity and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and constraints adequately. It lacks explicit mention of what happens to the channel's state, but it's sufficient for an agent to use 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds context by explaining the constraint on strength and listing waveforms, which reinforces the schema. The combination provides good parameter semantics.

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: to change the waveform of a channel without altering strength. It provides a specific verb-resource combination ('切换波形') and distinguishes itself from siblings like adjust_strength and start.

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?

Explicit guidance is given on when to use ('after starting, to change rhythm/sensation') and when not to use ('use adjust_strength for strengthening, start for unstarted channels'). Constraints like only changing waveform and stopping to describe sensation are highlighted.

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