import_frequency_response_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the data format (log-spaced, dB SPL or ohms) and optional phase, which is useful, but it does not mention side effects such as whether an existing measurement with the same name is overwritten, or how the measurement is stored. This is a moderate disclosure for a creation 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose, input format, and key parameter relationships. No words are wasted, and it is easily scannable.

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?

Given six parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential input structure and units, but it omits details about return values or error behavior. However, the schema provides full parameter coverage, so the description is sufficient for most selection and invocation purposes.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds interpretive value by clarifying that magnitude values are log-spaced, starting at startFreqHz with pointsPerOctave resolution, and that ohms relate to isImpedance. This goes beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'REW measurement', and specifies the input as 'in-memory frequency response data'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like import_impulse_response_data by mentioning frequency response and log-spaced magnitudes, making the tool's purpose 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?

The description implies usage when you have in-memory frequency response data, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives like import_frequency_response or import_impulse_response_data. The context is clear, but exclusionary guidance is missing.

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