configure_reference

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

With no annotations the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses prerequisites (enabled source, saved waveform before scale/offset is meaningful), the side effect of save_current (:REFerence:CURRent + :REFerence:SAVE), and that reset restores default scale/offset. It omits any return/acknowledgement behavior, but that is covered by the output schema.

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 definition is dense but front-loads the resource and resource-domain first, then groups per-parameter semantics, then the save_current/reset behaviors. The parenthetical '(manual 3.20)' and some restatement of enum options are minor overhead, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

For a 9-parameter configure call with an output schema present, the description supplies the missing pieces: prerequisites, global-vs-per-slot semantics for label_enable, and the negative guidance about file save/load in the :REFerence subsystem. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is absent.

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% and there are 9 parameters, so the description must compensate — and it does: ref maps to slots REF1..REF10, source lists valid values D0..D15/CH1..CH4/MATH1..MATH4 with an enablement caveat, color enumerates GRAY/GREen/BLUE/RED/ORANge, vscale/voffset get units and range dependencies, and label_enable is clarified as a global flag. Every parameter carries meaning beyond the bare 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 states the exact resource ('Reference waveform REF1..REF10') and enumerates the manipulable attributes (source, vscale/voffset, color, label, save_current, reset), so an agent knows this configures reference trace slots. It does not explicitly name the counterpart getter (get_reference_config) to sharpen the boundary, but the verb/resource pairing is 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?

It gives real selection conditions: source 'must currently be enabled', vscale/voffset only work 'once a waveform has been saved into the slot', and it explicitly routes export-to-disk to get_waveform instead. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool versus get_reference_config, which keeps it from a 5.

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