Configure the receiver

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

Annotations already indicate it is mutating (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavior: validation against '*_available' attributes, rejection with legal options, and the conditional that manual gain only applies in manual mode. These go beyond the annotations and provide essential operational context.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary actions and followed by crucial behavioral details. No wasted words, and each sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover idempotency and destructiveness, the description is largely complete. It explains the validation behavior and conditional constraints. It does not elaborate on the response format parameter, but that is self-explanatory from the schema. Minor gaps exist around expected side effects, but they are not critical.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches this by explaining the overarching behavior (omitted settings left alone) and the relationship between gain_mode and gain_db. It also frames the parameters in terms of the radio's available attributes, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 states a clear verb ('Set') and specific resources: sample rate, bandwidth, gain mode, and manual gain. It explicitly distinguishes this as a configuration tool for the receiver, which is distinct from sibling tools like tuning, capture, or status. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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?

It provides usage context by stating that omitted settings are left alone, implying partial configuration is allowed, and clarifies the conditional application of manual gain. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. Since the tool's purpose is inherently clear among siblings, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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