configure_channel

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so excellently. It discloses partial-update semantics, value snapping with the need to trust the applied read-back value, and a safety-critical confirmation flow for impedance='50', including the fact that the first call does not execute and requires returning a confirm_token.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the core purpose appears first, followed by parameter constraints, then the safety-critical confirmation flow. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 complex 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers optionality, value snapping, and the dangerous impedance confirmation path. The main gap is that it never explicitly describes the response shape beyond mentioning confirm_token and the applied read-back value, but agents can still safely invoke the tool based on the available guidance.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the tool description must compensate. It provides essential value constraints for channel ('CH1' to 'CH4'), coupling (DC / AC / GND), impedance ('1M' / '50'), and the confirm_token flow. Some parameters like offset_v, scale_v_per_div, and probe_ratio are left without explicit units or ranges, though their names provide reasonable hints.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Configure the vertical axis (a channel).' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like configure_timebase and configure_trigger, and it immediately signals the scope of what can be changed.

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 description clearly tells the agent when to use the tool: to change vertical-axis channel settings, and it explains that omitted items stay unchanged and at least one item must be specified. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for reading state or configuring other subsystems, so it stops short of full when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance.

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