afg2125_configure_fsk

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, aligning with the 'Enable and configure' action. The description adds the detail that the source can be internal or external, but does not disclose side effects like whether existing FSK settings are overridden or if output must be disabled. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and resource, followed by a key detail (source). No wasted words and easy to parse.

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 simple configuration tool with defaults and an output schema present, the description is adequate but misses key context: it does not mention the rate and hop frequency parameters, nor does it clarify its relationship to set_fsk_enabled. An agent might need to infer those from the 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?

The description only clarifies the 'source' parameter by mentioning internal/external. It does not explain 'rate_hz' or 'hop_frequency_hz', and schema description coverage is 0%. Since two of three parameters lack semantic context, the description only partially compensates for the schema's missing descriptions.

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 action ('Enable and configure') and the specific resource ('FSK') with a scope qualifier ('with an internal or external source'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like afg2125_configure_am or afg2125_set_fsk_enabled, as it covers both enabling and configuring FSK while specifying the source mode.

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 by naming the source selection, which helps an agent know when to use this tool (when configuring FSK with a chosen source). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like set_fsk_enabled or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it misses the 'no exclusions' level.

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