configure_awg_modulation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful behavioral constraints: fm_deviation_hz is bounded by the current carrier frequency, and the 'extra' dict only accepts documented MOD subsystem keywords (case-insensitive, canonicalized). However, it never says whether this is a pure write, whether it requires the AWG/output to be active, or what the required 'channel' and 'enable' flags do.

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?

Dense and front-loaded, leading with the core purpose before enumerating constraints. Some lines (manual section numbers, bare range fragments) are terse to the point of being cryptic, but there is little wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a 13-parameter mutation tool the description omits the required channel parameter and the enable flag entirely, which an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it does give units and ranges for am_depth_percent, fm_deviation_hz, pm_deviation_deg, internal frequency, and the waveform shape list, plus the 'extra' whitelist semantics. But it entirely omits the required 'channel' parameter, the 'enable' flag, and how am/fm/pm_internal_function and *_internal_frequency map to each modulation type, leaving substantial gaps.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: configuring generator modulation (AM|FM|PM) on the AWG, with a manual citation. It is clearly distinguishable from the broader configure_awg/set_awg_output siblings, though it never explicitly names them as alternatives.

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?

No statement of when to use this tool versus configure_awg, set_awg_output, or sync_awg_phase, and no prerequisites (e.g., must the AWG output already be enabled?). The manual section reference is not usage guidance.

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