configure_trigger

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a non-obvious behavior: 'Omitted items are left unchanged' (partial update semantics) and requires at least one item to change. However, it does not mention side effects on acquisition, error handling, or whether the configuration persists across runs. The update semantics are useful but incomplete.

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 brief and to the point, using line breaks to separate parameter details. It avoids fluff and front-loads the primary purpose. The only minor issue is that level_v is not mentioned, but that is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness one. The structure is efficient.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description should explain expected return/confirmation, prerequisites (e.g., device connection), and all parameters. It omits level_v entirely and provides no information on the return value or any constraints that might cause errors. This leaves an agent without enough context to call it confidently in all cases.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must explain parameters. It does explain source, slope, and sweep_mode with their allowed values, which adds meaning. However, it completely omits level_v, leaving its units and range undocumented. It covers 3 of 4 parameters, providing partial but not complete compensation.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Configure the edge trigger.' It specifies the resource (edge trigger) and the verb (configure), and the allowed parameters make it distinct from sibling tools like get_trigger or configure_channel. This is a specific, unambiguous definition.

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 gives context that this is for configuring the edge trigger and lists allowed values for three parameters, which implicitly guides usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like get_trigger or configure_timebase, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Some implied guidance but lacks explicit comparison.

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