add_semiadditive_measures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what measures are generated but does not mention whether the measures are persisted to the model, any prerequisites (e.g., a date table), permissions, or reversibility. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool that presumably alters the model.

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, information-dense sentence that lists the measure types and the pattern. Every phrase adds value, the core action is front-loaded, and there is zero wasted wording.

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 covers the core functionality well, but for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it would benefit from explaining what the generated measures are named, where they are created (e.g., in the target table), and any prerequisites. It is adequate for a simple generation tool but leaves out important operational context.

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?

The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema: it confirms valueColumn and dateColumn are the basis for the measures, but the schema already provides descriptions for those. It does not clarify sessionId or table usage. With 75% schema coverage, the description neither fully compensates for the undocumented sessionId nor adds significant new parameter semantics.

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 generates semi-additive balance measures with specific types (opening/closing balance, last/first non-blank) over value and date columns. It names a specific verb and resource, and the 'standard inventory / account-balance pattern' distinguishes it from general time-intelligence tools.

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 intended use case via 'standard inventory / account-balance pattern,' giving clear context for when to apply it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like add_time_intelligence_measures or state when not to use this tool, leaving exclusion guidance implied rather than explicit.

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