configure_timebase

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

With annotations already declaring mutation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotence, and non-destructiveness, the description adds genuinely useful context: only supplied parameters are changed (partial update), and it discloses the requested/before/after return shape in the absence of an output schema. It does not explain rollback or permission needs, but the added value is real.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the partial-update constraint, followed by the return-shape disclosure. No filler and each clause carries information.

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 a 3-param, no-output-schema mutation tool with modest annotation coverage, the description supplies the return format and update semantics but leaves the meanings of 'mode' and 'scale_s_per_div' unexplained. An agent can call it, but cannot confidently choose values for two of the three parameters.

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% for 3 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely doesn't: it explains only offset_s ('moves the trigger point') and says nothing about mode's MAIN/XY/ROLL values or scale_s_per_div's units. Two of three parameters remain semantically opaque.

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 clear verb ('Change') and resource ('horizontal settings'), which plausibly maps to timebase configuration and separates it from vertical/channel siblings. However, it never names or contrasts itself with the configure_* siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction from 'horizontal' alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the many configure_* siblings. The only directional cue is the implicit partial-update behavior, which is behavioral rather than selection guidance.

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