disable_afg

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it excels: it discloses immediate effect, no confirmation flow, the safety rationale, that waveform settings persist, and that the return value contains channel state with output false. This goes well beyond the structured data.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then adds rationale, usage timing, persistence behavior, and return value in a compact, well-organized way. Every sentence adds distinct value without redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter, side-effect-bearing tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what happens, when to use it, why no confirmation is needed, what is preserved, and what the return value contains. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the description should compensate. It mentions 'the channel in state' and implies the channel parameter selects the AFG output to disable, but it never explicitly defines valid values or clarifies that the channel is the single parameter. The name/default make it inferable, but explicit guidance is missing.

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 ('Turn off') and resource ('function generator output') with an immediate consequence ('no signal comes out any more'). This clearly differentiates it from enable_afg and other stop-type siblings.

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?

Gives explicit directives: 'Use it as soon as the measurement is done, and whenever the user asks for the signal to stop.' It also explains that no confirmation is needed by design, which tells the agent when direct invocation is safe, and references enable_afg as the counterpart for re-enabling.

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