set_trigger_timeout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the trigger's fire condition and the valid slope/time constraints, but as a set_ mutation tool it omits whether it replaces existing trigger config, permission needs, or side effects.

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?

Two tightly worded sentences with the trigger behavior front-loaded and parameters second. Only the slightly garbled enum spelling ('RFALl') and terse phrasing keep it from being a clean 5.

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, for a 5-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves three parameters unexplained and gives no usage guidance, so it is only partially complete.

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% and the schema types are generic (slope is an unconstrained string, time an unconstrained number). The description compensates by enumerating slope values (POSitive|NEGative|RFALl) and the time range (1 ns .. 10 s), but level, source, and extra remain completely undocumented.

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 (timeout trigger) and its firing condition ('fires when the signal stays on one side of the level'), which lets an agent distinguish it behaviorally from edge/pulse-width siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling trigger tools to route against, but the trigger semantics are clear.

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 and no mention of alternatives such as set_trigger_runt or set_trigger_pulse_width, which detect related 'signal stuck' conditions. The firing condition implies context but the agent must infer when timeout is preferred over other trigger modes.

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