Average Measurements

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full behavioral load. It never says the operation mutates session state and stores a new measurement by default, whether it needs an active API connection, whether repeated calls create duplicates, or what is returned. The one precondition it does reveal ('Vector requires phase/IR data') is useful but far from sufficient for a 7-parameter mutation tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then method options, then the use case. No filler or repetition.

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?

With seven parameters, a nested result_metadata object, no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves meaningful gaps: it does not describe the returned value or what storing the result produces. The rich input schema covers parameters well, but the mutation and return behavior remain unspecified.

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 schema already documents most parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only the coherent/incoherent distinction behind the method enum and does not explain weights, align_spl, alignment_range_hz, or the result_metadata fields.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a spatial average from multiple measurement positions'), which clearly separates it from read-only siblings such as rew_api_list_measurements or rew_compare_measurements. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it stops short of the top band.

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 supplies real usage context: it says the tool is 'useful for multi-position room calibration' and gives method-selection guidance ('RMS ... recommended for spatial averaging', 'Vector ... requires phase data'). It never states when-not to use it or which sibling to prefer for single-measurement analysis, so no 5.

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