polaris_measurement_producers

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it names the create action, its required inputs, the resulting entity shape, and the key invariant that exactly one producerId per PUSH definition governs who may submit. Gaps remain — nothing about auth/permissions to create, name uniqueness, idempotency, or failure behavior.

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?

Three tight paragraphs, each with a distinct job: what a producer is, what create requires, and what the returned id is for. The purpose and the required inputs are front-loaded before the structural JSON example, 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the entity shape and even the return contract ('the returned id is the producerId'), so an agent can both call and consume this tool. Missing authorization requirements and any statement about duplicate names or error conditions keep it from being fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by mapping inputs to the create action ('requires squad_id + name (optional description)') and by explaining that squad_id becomes parentId in the producer JSON. It does not cover input formats such as expected id shape or length limits, so it stops short of fully documented 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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Register measurement producers' — and operationalizes the concept ('identities authorized to PUSH measurements for a squad'), which implicitly separates it from pull-based measurement sources. It never names the dangerously similar sibling 'polaris_measurement_providers', so an agent must infer the producer-vs-provider distinction on its own.

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 conveys the workflow precondition well: you need a producer before a PUSH fitness-function definition can declare a producerId, and the returned id is the value to reference there. However, it never frames this as a choice against alternatives or states when-not to use it, and the sole action is fixed to 'create' with no guidance on updating or finding existing producers.

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