configure_alignment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (setting knobs and returning the resulting state) and implies a non-destructive configuration operation. However, it does not mention potential side effects, persistence, or whether the configuration is temporary or affects other alignment tools. This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and knobs, then the usage context and alternative. No filler or redundancy; every clause adds value.

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 a tool with 12 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a solid complete picture: any subset can be set, the resulting state is returned, and it's positioned against the standard alignment tool. It could mention the output structure or state details, but given the tool's simple config nature, it is nearly 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 high (83%), but the description adds meaningful grouping of parameters (measurement pair, mode, frequency, per-side gain/delay/polarity, delay limits), which helps the agent understand the parameter landscape. It also covers the two undocumented params (maxNegativeDelayMs, maxPositiveDelayMs) via 'delay limits', compensating for the schema gap.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Set any subset of the alignment tool's knobs' and enumerates the specific knobs (measurement pair, mode, frequency, per-side gain/delay/polarity, delay limits). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling align_measurements, which performs the standard phase-align in one call, making the identity and scope immediately 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?

The description gives explicit usage guidance: 'For manual what-if adjustments' and directly names the alternative tool for standard operation ('align_measurements does the standard phase-align in one call'). This tells the agent exactly when to choose this tool over siblings.

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