Measurement Groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose permissions, side effects, whether delete or remove_measurement are destructive and irreversible, or what the tool returns; the action names in the schema already imply mutation but the description adds no behavioral context.

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 two short sentences with the resource stated first and the actions enumerated second. 'Via API' is mildly redundant, but there is no filler or wasted text.

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 multi-action tool with destructive operations, five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits action-specific behavior, side effects, return expectations, and safety guidance that an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter and its action-specific requirements. The description only repeats the action enum and adds no extra meaning about parameter formats, conditional requirements, or data shape beyond what is in the schema.

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 identifies the resource (measurement groups) and enumerates the exact actions available, so an agent knows this is the group-management API. It does not differentiate itself from sibling tools such as rew_api_list_measurements or rew_api_get_measurement, which is why it falls short of a 5.

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 lists actions but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling measurement tools. There are no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no alternative-tool routing, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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