import_impulse_response_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It states 'Create a REW measurement,' which clearly implies a state-changing write operation, but it does not mention whether the new measurement replaces an existing one, becomes the active measurement, or requires any pre-existing session/calibration context. This lack of behavioral context is a significant gap for an action with side effects.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and provides essential details about the input format. Every phrase earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 adequately covers the core functionality for a data-import tool, and the rich schema descriptions fill in parameter details. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits guidance on post-creation effects (e.g., whether the measurement appears in the current measurement list, whether existing data is overwritten) and any prerequisites like needing an active measurement input for calibration. This is a moderate gap given the tool's complexity.

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 tool description adds some context by explaining that 'samples' are raw impulse response values and 'sampleRate' is intended for time-domain data, but this is largely redundant with the schema descriptions (e.g., 'Impulse response sample values'). It does not meaningfully enhance understanding beyond the structured parameter definitions.

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 tool's action ('Create a REW measurement') and specifies the exact input format ('raw sample values at a given sample rate'), distinguishing it from file-based imports like import_impulse_response or frequency-domain data tools. The verb 'Create' and the resource 'REW measurement' are specific and 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 a use case: when you have an in-memory impulse response (as opposed to a file), and the phrase 'in-memory' provides context against file-based sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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