Create Intent Waveform

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the deterministic intent→preset mapping with concrete default behavior per intent (gentle = low intensity + larger angular frequency; intense = higher intensity + smaller angular frequency), and states that the tool persists locally and returns parameters plus the full event sequence. It does not say what happens if `name` collides with an existing waveform (overwrite vs. error), which matters for a save operation.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the intent vocabulary before the defaults and the create-only caveat. The ω/b notation is a little dense but earns its place by binding parameters to the prose; no filler or restatement of the title.

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 not be explained — though the description helpfully notes it returns parameters and the event sequence. Still, for a 9-parameter, 0%-coverage mutation tool with no annotations, leaving timing parameters (duration_seconds, interval_seconds) and name-collision behavior undefined is a real gap an agent could hit when calling it.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate and it partially does: it explains the override parameters (intensity range via maximum/minimum_level, angular_frequency(ω), phase_radians(b), vibration_level) and gives meaning to `intent` via supported synonyms. However, duration_seconds and interval_seconds are never mentioned, and `name` semantics (uniqueness/overwrite) are untouched, leaving roughly half the surface 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+resource — deterministically mapping a natural-language intensity intent into a waveform preset and saving it locally — which is distinct from the sibling create_sine_waveform (parametric sine) and save_waveform (persisting an existing waveform). The closing clause "此工具只创建不播放" cleanly separates it from start_waveform. Siblings are not named, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 makes clear this is the tool for intent-phrased requests (温柔/轻柔, 普通/适中, 猛烈/强烈 plus English synonyms) and explicitly excludes playback, routing play requests elsewhere. It does not name the alternative to use when the agent already has explicit numeric waveform parameters, nor does it state any preconditions such as a connected device.

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