np_send_trigger

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description is not the only source of behavioral information. It adds that the tool executes previously uploaded StimParams through a trigger array, but says nothing about authorization/hardware preconditions, whether the call blocks, or what effect repeats has on the physical system.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, with no filler or repetition. The 'NeuroPlatform v2 —' branding prefix is decorative rather than informative, which keeps it just short of a 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?

With no output schema and a destructive, non-idempotent hardware-facing action, the description should do more: it never states that StimParams must be uploaded beforehand, what the trigger values map to physically, or what a response indicates. The safety signal is carried by annotations, so the gap is not severe, but the description is thin for the operation's impact.

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 both parameters (triggers, repeats) are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description's '16-bit trigger array' adds little and is arguably imprecise, since the schema constrains each element to 0-15; it does not clarify the 'sends trigger 2' example or the repeats semantics beyond what the schema states.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Fire trigger(s): execute uploaded StimParams') with a concrete resource and mechanism (a trigger array), so an agent knows this sends stimulation triggers rather than querying them. It does not distinguish itself from near neighbors such as np_query_triggers, np_configure_stim, or np_closed_loop, leaving the boundary implicit.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The phrase 'uploaded StimParams' hints at a prerequisite (stimulation params must already be configured/uploaded, presumably via np_configure_stim), but this is inferred rather than stated, and nothing says when to prefer this over np_closed_loop or np_configure_stim.

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