np_configure_stim

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions 'validate' and 'upload', which implies a write/configuration action, but does not explain side effects, persistence, safety implications, or whether the device will be immediately affected. For a hardware stimulation configuration tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and scope. The em-dash format highlights the core action, and the parenthetical adds essential domain context without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal: it omits return values, error handling, device impact, and any post-upload behavior. The schema covers parameter domains, but the tool's broader behavioral context—what happens once a StimParam is uploaded—is absent. This is insufficient for a complex configuration tool.

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 82%, so the parameter details are mostly self-explanatory in the schema. The description adds the context of 'charge-balanced biphasic stimulation', which connects to parameters like enforce_charge_balance and polarity, but doesn't explain any parameter beyond what the schema already provides. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Define, validate & upload a StimParam'. It names the specific resource (StimParam) and the domain (charge-balanced biphasic stimulation), making it distinguishable from sibling tools like np_send_trigger or np_count_spikes. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or refer to other tools in the sibling set, such as np_send_trigger or np_closed_loop. Usage context is only implied by the name and brief description.

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