set_channel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the important non-destructive trait that unspecified parameters are preserved, which is genuine behavioral value, but says nothing about error behavior on invalid values, whether it requires the instrument to be idle, or how changes interact with an active acquisition.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and the critical partial-update caveat in two short sentences, then uses a compact per-parameter list. For a 15-parameter tool, this is tightly organized with no filler.

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 no explanation, and the param list covers most of a large parameter set. The remaining gaps are the undescribed invert and display parameters, which an agent cannot infer from the schema alone.

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, and it does so well: it documents 12 of 15 parameters with units, ranges, and accepted values (e.g., scale ranges by impedance, bw_limit OFF|ON|20M|250M, coupling AC|DC|GND, 1-2-5 probe steps). It omits invert and display entirely, leaving two params undocumented in both places.

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 (Configure) and resource (analog channel CH1..CH4), and adds the partial-update semantics ('Only given parameters are changed'). This clearly separates it from read-oriented siblings like get_channel and get_channel_full.

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 'Only given parameters are changed' clause implies this is a targeted partial update rather than a bulk reset, which is useful context. However, it never names when to use this vs alternatives like autoscale or set_autoset_options, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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