set_trigger

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses non-obvious device behavior such as 'last one wins' for edge triggers and that reset=true clears existing conditions first. It does not mention error cases, permissions, or return behavior, but the key device quirks are covered.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: rule semantics, reset guidance, and representative examples. There is no filler or repetition.

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 description explains the main configuration rules and gives examples, but it leaves some gaps: it does not specify whether parameters combine, whether all parameters are optional together, or what happens when reset=false and new conditions are mixed with existing ones. There is also no mention of expected result or error behavior, though the examples reduce ambiguity.

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 must add parameter meaning. It does this by associating pos_edge/neg_edge with edge-trigger channels and high_level/low_level with level-trigger channel lists, reinforced by concrete examples like pos_edge=0 and high_level=[1,2]. This materially clarifies the bare integer/array schema types.

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 the specific verb 'Configure trigger conditions' and immediately clarifies the two trigger families: edge vs level. This distinguishes the tool from sibling configuration tools like set_sample_rate and set_threshold_voltage, which target different resources.

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 gives clear usage context: edge triggers take one channel while level triggers take several, and reset=true is recommended to clear existing conditions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but for its own parameter choices it provides actionable guidance.

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