configure_channel

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: 'Unspecified settings are preserved' discloses partial-update semantics, the gating/restore-of-enable-state sentence describes a real side effect, and the failure clause ('target output is requested off') discloses a safety-relevant behavior on error. This is exactly the extra context the destructive/non-idempotent annotations cannot convey.

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 core action is front-loaded and every sentence carries behavioral information rather than filler. The dense multi-clause sentences (gating/restore, failure handling) make it slightly hard to scan, but nothing is wasted.

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 7-parameter mutating tool with no output schema and destructive annotation, it covers side effects, partial-update behavior, model-dependent limits, and failure semantics well. Remaining gaps are the undocumented value/unit semantics of the numeric parameters.

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 carry parameter meaning. It clarifies 'enabled' handling, explains the waveform SQUARE vs PULSE distinction, and derives duty_percent behavior, but leaves offset_v, frequency_hz, amplitude_vpp (units, ranges) and the string-vs-integer waveform encoding undocumented.

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 and resource ('Set channel parameters in wave mode') and adds a verify step, which is enough to distinguish it from sibling writers like set_phase and configure_sweep. It does not explicitly name those siblings, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Usage context ('in wave mode', on channel 1/2) is implied but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives such as configure_sweep, set_mode, or set_outputs. The SQUARE/PULSE advice is parameter-level, not tool-selection guidance.

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