set_trigger_duration

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses no side effects, permission/auth requirements, or what existing trigger configuration gets overwritten. It reveals the underlying SCPI command mapping, which is useful context, but says nothing about the mutation semantics of a set_ operation.

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 and each subsequent clause maps a parameter to its SCPI form with no filler. The dense semicolon-run-on and cryptic arrow notation slightly reduce readability, but little 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, for an 8-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage, the description leaves half the parameters and all behavioral/safety context undocumented.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It documents pattern (with the H/L/X encoding), when (with the GREater|LESS|GLESs|UNGLess options), and level with its level_source dependency, but leaves time_lower, time_upper, source, and extra entirely unexplained.

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 names a specific trigger type ('Duration (time-qualified logic-state) trigger') and details its configurable dimensions, which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like set_trigger_pattern or set_trigger_edge. However it is phrased as a noun fragment rather than a verb+resource statement, so the 'set' action is only implied by the tool name.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when a duration trigger is preferred over the many sibling trigger tools (pattern, pulse_width, runt, window, timeout). The agent must infer applicability from the resource name alone.

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