set_measure_thresholds

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that reset_defaults restores default levels and that upper/middle/lower are interpreted as percent or volts depending on threshold_type, but it omits error behavior, persistence, and prerequisites for setting a source.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by compact per-parameter notes. The embedded SCPI command references add length but are informative for an instrument-control tool rather than padding.

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. For a 6-parameter mutation tool with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the description documents all parameters and the reset behavior adequately, but lacks usage guidance and error/permission context.

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 largely does: it defines source, threshold_type (PERCent vs ABSolute with 10-90 example), upper/middle/lower units, and reset_defaults semantics, mapping each to its SCPI command. Minor gaps remain (valid source enum values are only hinted).

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 a specific resource (measurement thresholds) and their role (rise time, delay, phase), making the tool's function clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling configuration tools like configure_measure_amplitude or configure_measure_setup, but the resource 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?

Usage is only implied: the parenthetical '(used for rise time, delay, phase, ...)' signals when thresholds matter, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative among the many sibling measure tools. An agent must infer the context.

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