set_arbitrary_wave

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false already indicates a mutation operation, and the description adds no further behavioral context. It does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting the existing waveform), prerequisites, or persistence. The description essentially restates the tool's function without exposing additional behavioral traits beyond what the annotation provides.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by concise usage examples. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant filler. It is exceptionally concise and well-structured.

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 3 parameters with only channel required. The description explains the two methods (index/name) but does not clarify that at least one of them must be provided or whether they are mutually exclusive. This is a significant gap because the schema allows omitting both, which would lead to an invalid call. The description otherwise covers the main usage well.

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 already documents each parameter with descriptions and examples. The tool description repeats some examples (2=StairUp, 18=Sinc, 26=Cardiac) and adds the index/name distinction, but this information is already present in the schema. The description adds marginal value, aligning with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 tool's action: 'Set the arbitrary waveform for a channel by index number or by name.' It names the resource (arbitrary waveform), the target (channel), and the two selection methods. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like configure_basic_wave, the purpose is specific and 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 clear usage guidance: 'Use index for built-in waveforms ... or name for user-defined waveforms.' This tells the agent exactly when to use each parameter. It doesn't discuss alternatives like get_arbitrary_wave, but it gives clear context for using this tool effectively.

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