Result add graph probe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and non-idempotency, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that—no mention of whether probes accumulate, whether duplicate probes are allowed, or what conditions enable this operation—leaving behavioral gaps for a mutating tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the parameter rules; no wasted words, and the critical conditional schema is packed into a compact form.

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 is adequate for calling it correctly but thin on context: it doesn't say when probes are useful, whether an existing result must be active, or how added probes appear. It covers invocation but not the surrounding workflow.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: it explains that type=point requires xyz while type=line requires start and end, and that slot is primary or compare. This effectively documents the conditional requirements across all five parameters, though it omits point coordinate format details.

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 ('Add a graph probe to extract time-series data'), which is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as result_clear_graph_probes or result_set_time. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 tells the agent what each type needs (point→xyz, line→start & end) and the slot values, which implicitly guides correct invocation. However, it never states when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g. a result must be loaded).

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