afg2125_set_am_enabled

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds the non-obvious constraint that MAIN output must be disabled, which is a meaningful behavioral disclosure. However, it does not mention failure modes, persistence, or interaction with other modulation settings, so the added detail is modest.

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 one sentence, starts with the action, and includes the most important condition. There is no wasted wording or unnecessary detail.

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 one-boolean toggle, the description covers the core action and a critical prerequisite. It does not discuss edge cases like behavior when MAIN output is enabled or whether AM must be configured first, but the tool's simplicity limits the impact of those omissions.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. The phrase 'Enable or disable AM' directly maps the boolean 'enabled' parameter to true/false states, and the added 'MAIN output disabled' condition clarifies when the parameter takes effect. This compensates for the schema's minimal description.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pair ('Enable or disable AM') and adds a key condition ('while MAIN output is disabled'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like afg2125_set_fm_enabled and afg2125_configure_am.

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 provides clear context by specifying that this operation applies while MAIN output is disabled. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the precondition is a useful usage hint.

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