add_time_history_function

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

Annotations provide no meaningful behavioral hints beyond non-readOnly, non-idempotent signals, and the description does not disclose side effects such as whether an existing function with the same name is replaced, whether points must be ordered, or what happens with invalid input. The description only says 'Add', leaving most behavioral traits unstated.

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 short, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses a clear parameter list. It avoids unnecessary prose, though the whitespace-heavy formatting adds little value.

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?

The tool is a simple additive function with defaults for all but one parameter, and the description provides the core input shape. Still, it lacks context about how this function relates to time history cases, whether duplicate names are allowed, and what range or format constraints apply to the time-value pairs.

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 must compensate, and it partially does: it explains name, factor as scale factor, kind as type, and function_info as [[time, value], ...] points. However, 'kind: Type' is nearly tautological and no valid kind values or constraints are given, so the added parameter meaning is incomplete.

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 action ('Add time history function') and identifies the resource. It lists the relevant parameters, making the tool's function understandable, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling functions like add_creep_function or add_shrink_function.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_spectrum_function or add_time_history_case. The description states only what the tool does, not the conditions that should lead an agent to select it.

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