arb_set_am

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for behavior. 'Enable AM modulation' implies a state change but does not say whether it overwrites existing modulation, interplays with FM/PM, requires a carrier waveform, or has any side effects. This is too thin for a state-changing instrument command.

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 extremely compact and front-loaded: one purpose sentence followed by a concise parameter list. Every line provides necessary information with 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 a setter with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, the description is too minimal. It lacks behavioral context, valid ranges, return value meaning despite an output schema, and guidance on how this relates to other modulation tools. An agent would have to guess about side effects and interactions.

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 0%, so parameter meaning depends entirely on the description. It compensates well by adding units ('percent', 'Hz') and the valid channel range ('1 or 2'), going beyond bare schema property names. It does not give valid ranges for depth or frequency, but the essentials are clearly defined.

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 action ('Enable AM modulation') on a clear resource ('the waveform generator'), which separates it from the many sibling tools. It does not explicitly name or distinguish against arb_set_fm or arb_set_pm, but the AM-specific wording is unambiguous enough.

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 first sentence implies the use case: use this when you want to enable AM modulation on the generator. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives such as FM, PM, or sweep modulation, leaving the selection decision partially to inference.

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