arb_set_amplitude

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and units but does not mention side effects, error behavior, valid ranges, or whether the setting is immediate/persistent. 'Set' implies mutation, but nothing is disclosed about what happens on invalid input or whether the change requires the output to be enabled.

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 efficient: one imperative sentence followed by two short parameter lines. The main action is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema structure.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core operation and parameter semantics. However, it omits practical details an agent needs for correct use, such as amplitude limits, channel validation, and whether the output must be enabled. These are notable gaps but not crippling given the simple signature.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by explaining channel as 'Channel number (1 or 2)' and amplitude as 'Amplitude in Vpp'. This adds real value beyond the raw integer/number types in the schema. No minimum/maximum amplitude constraints are given, but the key semantics are covered.

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 starts with the verb 'Set', names the resource 'output amplitude', specifies the unit 'Vpp', and identifies the target device 'waveform generator'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling setters like arb_set_offset or arb_set_output_load.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like valid amplitude range, output enable state, or when this setter should be preferred over similar set functions. The context is only implied by the tool name and sibling set values.

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