setup_measure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does add some value by indicating that running asynchronously produces a 'managed observable job,' but it does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, whether the call blocks, where results are stored, or how the returned job can be observed. This is partial but not complete behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the main action is front-loaded and the run_async tip is immediately actionable. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain what a successful run returns, how to retrieve measurement results, what 'managed observable job' means operationally, or whether the setup must already be fully configured. An agent could probably invoke it, but not confidently interpret the outcome.

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 only 50%, so the description needs to compensate. It adds meaning to run_async ('managed observable job') beyond the bare boolean schema, but it adds nothing about setup_path beyond the schema's 'Setup path.' The agent still lacks path format/scope details and how to consume the async job result.

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 ('Run'), a resource ('Setup'), and an action ('measurement instruments'), so an agent can tell this is an execution tool rather than a query tool. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like setup_simulate, and 'measurement instruments' is slightly jargon-heavy.

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 only usage guidance is 'Use run_async=true for a managed observable job,' which is a parameter-level tip rather than tool-selection guidance. There is no mention of when to prefer setup_measure over setup_simulate or other setup-related tools, nor when sync vs async should be chosen beyond a vague descriptor.

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