Annotate Metric

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It honestly states 'Effect: WRITE — mutates data' and mentions dry_run as a preview safety mechanism, which is valuable context. It does not cover overwrite behavior or permission requirements, but the core mutation semantics are disclosed.

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 two tight sentences: purpose and example first, behavioral warning second. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to parse quickly.

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 description is sufficient for high-level tool selection but incomplete for confident invocation. It does not explain optional parameters like severity and author, nor what happens after a successful write. Given no annotations and no output schema, these gaps matter, though the core usage is still understandable.

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. It explains dry_run and indirectly clarifies metric, period, and note through the phrasing, but author and severity are left completely undocumented. This is inadequate for all six parameters.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Attach a durable note to a metric/period'. The anomaly root-cause example clarifies intent and distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_annotations and retract_annotation.

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 clearly indicates when to use it, such as when an agent wants to record the root cause of an anomaly for future readers. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the use case is concrete enough to guide selection.

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