configure_channel

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-destructive, idempotent write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: only supplied parameters mutate, probe_ratio must match the probe's attenuation switch, and it rescales V/div (a non-obvious side effect), plus the requested/before/after return shape. It does not mention required device state or error behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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 dense sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the mutation semantics before the parameter nuances. The note about the return payload earns its place because no output schema exists.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical unknowns: partial-update semantics, channel identifier formats, the probe_ratio constraint, and the return shape. It falls short only on documenting the remaining six parameters and any preconditions or units beyond what the parameter names imply.

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 compensate for 8 parameters and it only explains two: channel (accepts 1-4 or CHAN1-CHAN4) and probe_ratio (must match attenuation, rescales V/div). The remaining six (invert, display, coupling, bw_limit, offset_v, scale_v_per_div) get no textual explanation, though their names and inline enums for coupling/bw_limit carry most of the meaning.

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 ('Change one channel's settings') and immediately qualifies the semantics with 'only the parameters given are changed', which pins down partial-update behavior. This clearly separates it from sibling configure_* tools that target timebase, trigger, or acquisition rather than a channel.

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 scope is implied (one channel, partial update), so an agent can infer it is the channel-settings entry point, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of how it relates to configure_timebase/configure_trigger/configure_acquisition or get_settings. Usage is inferable but not routed.

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