Dd Configure

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 two behavioral traits: it opens the mode if not already open (a side effect) and re-reads results after changes, plus the blank-argument-is-no-op rule. It does not state permissions, undo/reversibility, or failure behavior on invalid values, and defers return detail to the output schema.

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?

A single well-formed sentence front-loads the primary action (open the mode and set parameters), with the partial-update rule appended. Every clause earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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?

For an 8-parameter, all-optional device-configuration tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials (partial updates, mode auto-open, read-back). Still, it omits what an agent would want for a hardware config tool with no annotations: permission requirements, behavior on invalid ranges, and whether changes are atomic.

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 100%, so every parameter is documented in the schema itself (including value formats like '1GHz', enum-like mod lists, and the filter greyed-out caveat). The description only summarizes the parameter groups and adds nothing beyond the schema, so the 3 baseline applies.

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 verb ('set') and resource (SAStudio4's Digital Demod mode configuration), naming the settings it controls (modulation, symbol rate, center, filter, averaging, reference level). This distinguishes it from the sa_* spectrum-analyzer family by resource, though it never explicitly contrasts with sa_configure. An agent can identify the operation but must infer the sibling split from the 'Digital Demod' phrasing alone.

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 context is implied rather than stated: it is for configuring Digital Demod mode settings, and it usefully notes blank arguments are left unchanged (partial-update semantics). However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs sa_configure/dd_results guidance and no exclusions, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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