configure_basic_wave

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint:false, so the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds context about building a single BSWV command, hinting at atomicity/efficiency, but doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., setting waveform_type), validation of parameter combinations, or side effects beyond the mutation itself.

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 brief overall, but the second and third sentences ('Multiple parameters can be set in a single call' and 'builds a single BSWV command with all specified parameters') are redundant, repeating the same idea. It is front-loaded but could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 has 18 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is under-specified. It doesn't explain parameter dependencies (e.g., some params are only valid for specific waveform types), mutual exclusivity (frequency vs. period), or the need to set waveform_type first. The schema describes each parameter individually, but the description fails to synthesize this into a coherent usage model.

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 100%, so the schema itself documents each parameter's meaning and constraints. The description adds little beyond noting that multiple parameters can be set at once, which doesn't deepen understanding of individual parameter semantics or relationships like mutual exclusivity.

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 'Configure the basic waveform parameters of a channel' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like configure_modulation, configure_sweep, and configure_output by focusing on basic waveform parameters, and the name reinforces this scope.

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?

While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the context is clear: it is for basic waveform parameters and supports batching multiple parameters in a single call. This implies when to use it (for basic wave settings) but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to siblings like configure_modulation or configure_sweep.

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