design_wave

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains that waveforms are saved to library, can be played immediately, and lists segment primitives. It mentions call frequency and duration constraints. Minor gaps: no mention of editing existing waveforms or storage limits, but overall 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 concise and well-structured: first sentence captures purpose, then trigger/alternatives, constraints, and primitives. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 complexity (5 parameters, 4 segment types, no output schema), the description is thorough. It covers usage context, constraints, and segment types. Missing return value explanation, but acceptable without output schema.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining segment primitives (ramp, hold, pulse, silence) in context, which enhances understanding beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. This extra semantic guidance justifies a 4.

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: design a custom waveform by combining segments. It uses a specific verb ('design') and resource ('waveform'), and distinguishes from siblings by naming alternative tools (start, change_wave, adjust_strength) and their use cases.

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 explicitly specifies when to use (user's sensation cannot be expressed by existing waveforms) and when not to use (built-in waveforms sufficient → start/change_wave; only intensity adjustment → adjust_strength). It also provides constraints like one call per turn and duration limits.

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