set_trigger_common

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 meaningful applicability constraints (coupling is edge-only, holdoff is unavailable for several trigger types, noise_reject is analog-source-only). It does not, however, describe side effects of the mutation, whether settings persist, or how it interacts with the type-specific trigger setters.

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 statement is front-loaded and the parameter list is dense with no filler text. Structure is a terse pseudo-schema rather than prose, but every line carries information and nothing is redundant.

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, and the description covers all five parameters with value semantics and applicability. Remaining gaps are behavioral (persistence, side effects, interaction with type-specific trigger tools) rather than informational ones.

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 the schema exposes bare strings/numbers with no enums, so the description does the entire job: it enumerates allowed values for mode (20 trigger types), sweep, and coupling, gives the holdoff numeric range (8 ns .. 10 s), and scopes noise_reject. This is exactly the compensation required when the schema is silent.

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 ('Trigger-wide settings') and scopes it as applying to 'the current trigger type', which distinguishes it from the type-specific siblings like set_trigger_edge or set_trigger_pulse_width. It is clear what is being set, though the verb is only implied by the name and no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternative guidance — it never says to prefer this over set_trigger_edge or get_trigger_common. However, per-parameter applicability notes ('edge trigger, analog source only', 'unavailable for VIDeo/TIMeout/NEDGe/serial types') give implied conditions for valid use.

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