add_moving_average

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 states the primary action (generates a measure) but does not mention side effects, whether existing measures are overwritten, or prerequisites like having a valid date table. This is minimal but not outright missing.

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 sentence with a brief unit note. The main verb 'Generate' is front-loaded, and every word contributes. No redundant or filler content.

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?

For a 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, a single-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain prerequisites, behavior on missing or partial periods, where the measure is added, or the expected overall outcome. The description is adequate for purpose but lacks depth for a tool of this 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 86%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight meaning by clarifying the window via 'last N periods' and the unit default, but it does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 'Generate a rolling moving-average measure over the last N periods', which specifies a distinct operation (generating a specific measure type) and differentiates it from sibling time-intelligence tools like running totals or general time intelligence.

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 the tool is used when a rolling moving-average is needed, but it does not state explicit when-to-use conditions or mention alternatives such as add_running_total or add_time_intelligence_measures. No exclusions or comparative guidance is provided.

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