acq_configure

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

The description includes the term 'disruptive' which hints at behavioral impact (e.g., interrupting ongoing operations). However, it does not explain what exactly gets disrupted, whether it requires specific permissions, or what side effects occur. Without annotations, more disclosure is needed.

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 description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it may be under-specified given the tool's complexity. It is front-loaded but could expand without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the low schema richness (0% description coverage), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not cover return values, error conditions, or the full effect of the tool, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 description only mentions 'acquisition type and/or memory depth' without linking to the parameters (args and kwargs). The generic parameter names are not clarified, so the description adds almost no value beyond the schema.

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 clearly identifies the verb 'set' and the resources 'acquisition type and/or memory depth', which gives a specific purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'acq_run' or 'acq_force', missing a clear differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks information about prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no decision support.

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