configure_acquisition

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

Annotations already declare idempotent=true, destructive=false, readOnly=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: partial-merge semantics ('only the parameters given are changed') and the return shape ('requested/before/after'). It stops short of stating auth needs or failure behavior.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then parameter constraints, then return value. Dense but each clause earns its place; the range list is the only heavy spot.

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?

Mutations with no output schema, and the description does cover return values and partial-update behavior. Still, the enum semantics and memory-depth units are missing, leaving an agent short of fully correct invocation guidance for a 3-parameter tool.

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 the load. It usefully documents 'averages' (power of two, 2-1024) and the memory-depth ranges, but leaves the acquisition_type enum values (NORMAL/AVERAGES/PEAK/HRESOLUTION) and the 'AUTO' memory depth unexplained.

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 how the scope acquires'), which cleanly marks the acquisition-configuration domain. It doesn't explicitly name or differentiate itself from siblings like configure_channel or configure_trigger, but the topic is unambiguous.

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?

Conveys conditional usage well ('averages ... applies in AVERAGES mode', memory-depth limits that vary with channel count), which is real guidance. However, it never says when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as configure_channel/timebase/trigger, nor any prerequisites.

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