configure_burst

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

The description adds a useful behavioral detail: it 'Builds a single BTWV command with all specified parameters.' This goes beyond the basic readOnlyHint annotation by revealing the command construction. However, it does not disclose whether the command is actually sent, how errors are handled, or whether parameters are validated, which is significant for a tool with 19 parameters.

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 two concise sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the purpose and includes an essential usage note, making it highly efficient.

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?

As a complex tool with 19 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key prerequisite but omits details about execution behavior, validation, and possible error states. The rich schema descriptions compensate for some gaps, but the description alone leaves important context unclear, such as whether the BTWV command is immediately applied or merely built.

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 schema provides 100% description coverage for all 19 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the important cross-parameter dependency that 'State must be set to ON before other parameters,' which is not fully captured in the schema. This is valuable but minimal, as all individual parameter meanings are already in the schema.

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 identifies the action ('Configure burst mode'), the target resource ('on a channel'), and the implementation approach ('Builds a single BTWV command'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like configure_modulation or configure_sweep, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 an explicit ordering guideline: 'State must be set to ON before other parameters.' This is a key usage condition. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the focus on burst mode and the mention of BTWV command imply when it should be used relative to other configuration tools.

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