submit_measurement

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It does disclose auth requirements ('AUTH'), a precondition (seconded proposal), and the attempt_id linkage. However, it does not explain side effects, whether submission can overwrite, or what response to expect.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. The parenthetical references are dense and somewhat opaque, but every part contributes necessary context and there is no filler.

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?

It gives useful pointers to get_protocols and /panel.py and covers the key prerequisite, but the measurement object shape is delegated to an external API spec. Without annotations or an output schema, an agent may still be uncertain about response format and failure modes.

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 coverage is only 50%, but the description adds meaning by specifying the measurement fields ('metric, value, manifest') and the optional attempt_id. The slug parameter remains undocumented except by inference from the tool name and context.

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: 'submit a measurement for a seconded proposal.' It clearly differentiates this from sibling read tools like list_measurements and get_measurement, and from creation tools like propose and mint_attempt.

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 conveys when to use the tool by naming the prerequisite ('seconded proposal'), referencing get_protocols for the SPEC, and instructing to include attempt_id when preregistered via mint_attempt. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the contextual conditions are reasonably clear.

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