Import Measurements

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly drops it. It does not say whether an import overwrites existing measurements, whether a live REW API connection must already be open, what errors look like, or whether file paths are resolved on the client or server side. Only the action enumeration hints at behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, and the action list is compact. The action enumeration largely duplicates the input schema enum, which is minor waste but keeps the caller from opening the schema to learn the variants.

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 three-parameter tool with a nested data object and no output schema or annotations, the description is the minimum viable: it says what goes in but not what comes out (measurement IDs? confirmation?) nor the connection precondition. The schema covers the parameter detail, but behavioral context around a mutating import remains thin.

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% and every parameter, including the nested data fields (phases, samples, magnitudes, frequencies, sample_rate), is documented in the schema with its intended action pairing. The description adds nothing beyond repeating the enum values already present in the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Import measurement data into REW via API') and enumerates the six action variants, so the tool's function is unambiguous. It stops short of distinguishing this from siblings such as rew_ingest_measurement or rew_api_measure, which an agent would need to pick correctly.

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 list of actions is the only usage signal; there is no statement of when to choose this tool over rew_ingest_measurement, rew_api_measure, or the file-vs-data alternatives. No prerequisites, no when-not conditions, no mention that a connection to REW is presumably required.

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