ingest_measurement

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a mutation side effect (updates the per-machine profile), but says nothing about whether that overwrites or accumulates, what permissions are needed, whether profile changes are reversible, or how invalid payloads are handled.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, but it is under-sized for a four-parameter, schema-opaque mutation tool. Conciseness is achieved at the cost of necessary detail rather than through efficient packaging.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, 0% parameter descriptions, and a nested object payload mean the description is the only documentation channel, and it provides one sentence. An agent cannot determine accepted measurement kinds or the expected payload shape from this definition alone.

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 0% for four required parameters, including a free-form 'payload' object with additionalProperties. The description hints only loosely at measurement content and the machine ('printer_id'), and never explains 'measurement_kind' values or what 'material' denotes.

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 ('Ingest a calibration measurement') plus the side effect ('update the per-machine profile'), so an agent knows what it does without opening the schema. It does not differentiate from calibration siblings such as record_calibration_correction or import_third_party_calibration.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no mention of the many adjacent calibration tools (import_third_party_calibration, record_calibration_correction, apply_calibration_recommendations). The agent must infer timing and routing entirely from the tool name.

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