set_acquire

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that the wrapper rejects non-power-of-two averages while the instrument would round down, that memory depth limits scale with channel mode (500/250/125 Mpts), and that bits availability depends on mode. Missing only mutation/persistence semantics and auth needs.

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 as a spec sheet; every line carries a constraint or value domain with no filler prose. The bare 'Acquisition system.' header is a weak label but costs little. Appropriate length for a four-parameter configuration tool.

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-value explanation is not required, and the parameter domain is thoroughly covered. The one gap is that the nullable/default-null semantics (whether passing null leaves a setting unchanged) are never stated, leaving an agent unsure how partial updates behave.

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% and all four parameters are undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate fully — and it does, giving mnemonic value domains for type, memory_depth, averages (with range, power-of-two rule and rounding divergence), and bits per mode. This is exactly the meaning the schema lacks.

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 fragment 'Acquisition system.' rather than a verb+resource statement, so it never explicitly says 'configures acquisition parameters.' However, the enumerated fields (type, memory_depth, averages, bits) make clear it sets acquisition configuration, and the sibling name get_acquire implies this is the write counterpart. Purpose is inferable but not stated.

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 guidance on when to call this versus get_acquire, no prerequisites, and no mention of interaction with related tools (timebase, channel, run state). The per-field constraints are validation rules, not usage routing. An agent must guess the context.

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