Instrument Configure

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key side effect (mutating capture configuration) and explicitly clarifies that it does not start capture, which is important. However, it does not mention prerequisites like an open instrument, whether previous settings are overwritten, or how configuration interacts with a running capture.

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 efficient sentence plus a short behavioral caveat. Every phrase contributes information, and the primary verb and resource are front-loaded. There is no repetition of the title or filler content.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage, the description carries heavy weight. It provides the core semantic model and an important non-start clarification, but it omits lifecycle preconditions, the meaning of timeout_s and extra, and the relationship to instrument_start/capture. It is adequate for basic selection but not fully complete for every invocation workflow.

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 0%, so the description must add parameter meaning on its own. It successfully maps semantic families to the schema: rate→sample_rate_hz, channels, duration/samples→duration_s/sample_count, and trigger→trigger_edge/trigger_channel. It stops short of explaining timeout_s and extra, and units or mutual exclusivity are left to inference, but the main parameters are clarified well.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') with a concrete resource ('live capture params') and enumerates the exact field families: rate, channels, duration or samples, trigger. It actively distinguishes itself from capture/start tools by adding 'Does not start yet.' This makes its purpose unmistakable and separates it from siblings like instrument_start and instrument_capture.

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 implies it should be used for configuring before starting a capture, and explicitly warns that it does not start anything. However, it does not state when to call it relative to instrument_open, instrument_capture, or instrument_start, nor does it name alternatives. The usage context is implied by the sibling set rather than clearly defined.

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