mxa_set_harm_trigger

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

Annotations only indicate destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds no behavioral context: no mention of side effects, required device states, or interaction with other settings. For a tool with minimal annotations, the description should disclose more but fails to do so.

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?

The description is a single short sentence, making it concise. However, conciseness sacrifices informational completeness; it lacks structure and key details. A better balance would include parameter hints or usage context.

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 presence of many sibling tools and the tool's role in configuring harmonics, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the trigger source concept or how this setting affects measurements. An output schema exists but is not shown; return values are not mentioned.

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%, and the description provides no explanation for the two parameters (alias, params_json). The agent has no guidance on valid values or how to use them, making parameter usage ambiguous.

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 '[MXA] 设置谐波触发源' (set harmonic trigger source) clearly identifies the action (set) and resource (harmonic trigger source). It distinguishes it from sibling tools like mxa_set_harm_number or mxa_set_harm_bw by specifying the trigger source aspect. However, the lack of detail in English and absence of what a 'harm trigger source' entails slightly reduce clarity.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not state when to use this tool over alternatives like mxa_config_harmonics or mxa_set_harm_trace_type. There is no context on prerequisites or scenarios, leaving the agent to guess.

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