Change analog AM path 1 depth (0.1–100%) on an ESG signal generator while preserving RF on/off. Rejects I/Q voice playback; upload a new waveform to change that.
Change active analog AM path 1 depth (0.1–100%). Preserves RF on/off.
Rejects I/Q voice playback: its depth must be changed by generating a new waveform with upload_am_wav. Does not silently switch modulation modes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth_percent | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses state side effects: RF on/off is preserved, and the tool will not silently switch modulation modes. That is meaningful behavioral context for a mutation, though it omits whether depth changes apply immediately or require an apply/commit step.
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?
Front-loaded with the core action and range, with side effects and the rejection case following. Three short sentences, no filler, though the final 'Does not silently switch modulation modes' sentence partially restates the preceding rejection clause.
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 single-parameter mutation with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers purpose, valid input range, side effects, and the failure/alternative path. Minor gap: no statement of what happens on out-of-range input or whether the setting persists.
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% — the parameter is just a bare number. The description compensates by supplying both unit semantics (percentage) and the accepted range (0.1–100%), which is the key information an agent needs to invoke it correctly.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Change active analog AM path 1 depth') and supplies the valid range (0.1–100%). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling upload_am_wav by naming the modulation mode it refuses to operate on.
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?
Gives an explicit when-not rule ('Rejects I/Q voice playback') and routes the agent to the correct alternative (upload_am_wav). It does not, however, clarify how it relates to configure_am_tone or other AM siblings, so selection guidance is strong but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.