configure_probe

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the intent and a prerequisite, but does not mention whether this tool modifies persistent state, requires special permissions, what side effects occur, or whether it implicitly connects to the probe. This is a significant gap for a configuration tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a precise instruction. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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?

A tool with 12 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema requires more detailed context to be fully understood. The description only hints at the workflow (listing probes first) but doesn't explain the configuration scope, whether changes are persistent, or what a successful configuration looks like. The description is too sparse for the tool's complexity.

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?

The input schema has 12 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. The only parameter mentioned is unique_id, which is correctly identified as a value from list_connected_probes. All other parameters (target, backend, pack_path, connect_attempts, etc.) remain unexplained in both schema and description.

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 probe connection parameters.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that indicates configuration of probe connection settings. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like probe_connect, but the focus on 'parameters' sets it apart as a configuration step rather than a connection action.

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 provides a clear prerequisite: 'Run list_connected_probes first to find unique_id.' This gives the user actionable guidance on when to use the tool relative to a sibling tool. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for a straightforward configuration step.

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