configure_modulation

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint:false annotation, the description discloses the sequential execution behavior: state, then type, then type-specific parameters, then carrier parameters. This adds valuable insight into the tool's operation, though it does not cover error handling or side effects.

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 only three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the key usage sequence. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool has 15 parameters and no output schema, but the schema fully documents each parameter. The description adds the crucial state-first prerequisite and command sequencing, which are essential for correct invocation. It could be more explicit about which parameters apply to which modulation types, but that is partially hinted at with 'type-specific parameters' and covered by enum descriptions in 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the ordering and dependency of parameters (state first, type before type-specific parameters), which is not captured in the schema itself. This helps the agent understand how parameters interrelate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Configure modulation on a channel.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like configure_output or configure_basic_wave. The purpose is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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 procedural context: 'Set state first (ON), then type and parameters' and explains the sequential command ordering. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, the ordering guidance is a strong usage guideline for this complex tool.

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