configure_measurement

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: firmware rounds bandwidth to available filters, and changes are not rolled back on error, which warns the agent about partial-failure state. It does not state required permissions or idempotency.

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-loads what is set, then layers three short constraint sentences with zero filler. Every sentence carries operative information (rounding, null semantics, mutual exclusion, error behavior).

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose. For a 5-parameter, zero-required setter, the description covers the failure mode, rounding side effect, and the auto/explicit interaction an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 only 20% (only rbw_hz is documented), so the description must compensate and largely does: it explains the null/'None' semantics and the mutual exclusivity between auto and explicit values, which is the key trap for rbw_auto vs rbw_hz and attenuation_auto vs attenuation_db. The unit_dbm boolean and attenuation_auto flag are still explained only by their names.

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?

Names a specific verb (explicitly set) and the exact resources it acts on (bandwidth in Hz, attenuation in dB, dBm display units), plus a read-back capability. It is clearly distinguishable from read-only siblings like get_status or scan_spectrum, though it never names an alternative directly.

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?

Provides real usage rules for the parameters ('None leaves a setting unchanged', 'Auto and explicit value are mutually exclusive'), which governs correct invocation. However it offers no guidance on when to pick this tool over siblings such as get_device_info or capture_spectrum, so tool-selection guidance is only implied.

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