set_trigger_nth_edge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the trigger's firing semantics and gives units/ranges for idle_time and level, which is useful, but says nothing about whether it overwrites existing trigger config, required acquisition/run state, or how it interacts with trigger mode.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by compact parameter notes; no filler. Slightly terse for a 6-parameter tool, but every line earns its place.

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. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description still omits prerequisites (run/stop state, trigger mode) and the source parameter, leaving the agent with gaps beyond the trigger semantics it does cover.

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%, so the description is the only source; it compensates well for slope, idle_time, edge, and level, including value ranges and units ('16 ns .. 10 s', '±4.5×scale−offset', '±15 V') that the bare schema does not provide. It leaves 'source' and 'extra' undocumented, keeping it short of a perfect score.

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+resource ('Nth-edge burst trigger') and adds the defining behavior ('fires on the Nth edge after a quiet period'), which distinguishes it from the many sibling trigger setters. It does not name a specific alternative sibling, but the trigger-type name is sufficiently distinctive.

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?

Gives no when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative selection guidance despite a large family of sibling trigger tools (set_trigger_edge, set_trigger_pulse_width, set_trigger_runt, etc.). The agent must infer that this is the right tool purely from the trigger-type name.

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