configure_trigger

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly false, idempotent true, destructive false), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real context: partial-update semantics, the implicit mode switch to EDGE, sweep free-run vs wait behavior, and the returned requested/before/after triple. Only the SINGLE sweep mode and coupling behavior go unexplained.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the most important qualifier, then dense supporting sentences with no filler. Slightly terse and telegraphed, but every 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating the return shape (requested/before/after). Combined with the mode-switch and sweep semantics, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though a few parameters (coupling, holdoff_s, SINGLE) remain opaque.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load and it partly does: source values (1-4, CHAN1-CHAN4, AC) and sweep AUTO/NORMAL are documented, and the effect of slope/level is described. But level_v units, coupling options, holdoff_s, and the SINGLE sweep value are left undocumented in both schema and description.

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 the edge-trigger settings") and immediately qualifies the update semantics as partial ("only the parameters given are changed"). This clearly separates it from siblings like configure_channel, configure_timebase, and configure_acquisition, which target different subsystems.

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 explains conditional behavior — supplying source/slope/level implicitly switches the trigger to EDGE mode, and it distinguishes sweep AUTO (free-run) from NORMAL (waits for trigger). However, it never says when to choose this tool over alternatives or what prerequisites/permissions apply, so usage is only implied.

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