record_esd_measurement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for what is a write operation. It mentions a plan-tier prerequisite and vaguely alludes to 'team review, approval gates', but never says whether a logged record is immediately persisted, queued for approval, validated against a resistance threshold, or what error surfaces on a non-Business account.

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 purpose is correctly front-loaded in the first sentence, but two of the four lines are plan-upsell boilerplate including a tracking URL with utm parameters that carries no operational value for the agent.

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?

An 8-parameter write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented required fields cannot be called confidently from this description alone. It omits what success returns, how approval gates affect the write, and any unit or range for the core 'ohms' value.

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 only 63%, and both required parameters ('material', 'ohms') have no schema description at all. The prose hints at 'surface resistance' and 'surface' but adds no units, expected range, valid values for 'method'/'surface', or meaning for design_id/printer_id/nozzle_temp_c, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Log a measured surface resistance for a printed dissipative part'), which is unambiguous about the operation. It does not distinguish itself from nearby record_* tools (record_chemical_outcome, record_load_outcome, ingest_measurement) that could plausibly swallow a measurement, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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?

'Requires Kiln Business' is a genuine gating condition that tells the agent whether the call is even permitted, which is useful. However, there is no statement of when to use this versus ingest_measurement or record_calibration_correction, and no guidance on when a measurement should not be logged (e.g. duplicate entries).

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