historian_push

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful safety context: 'risk=low', 'Data egress to the operator's OWN database,' and 'Non-numeric points are skipped.' It also discloses the return dict shape, going well beyond the structured annotations.

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 well-structured with a concise header, intro, Args list, Returns line, and example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is slightly verbose (repeats 'write' concept), but every section adds value; the example is helpful. A touch more brevity would make it perfect.

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 output schema, the description covers input format, defaults, target systems, return values, and a complete example. It also adds domain context (national TSDB, 信创) and safety disambiguation. No critical gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains each parameter group (points, sink, host/port/user/password, database), provides value domains for sink ('tdengine' or 'iotdb'), notes sensible defaults, and gives an example mapping for points. This fully compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Push collected telemetry to a national TSDB.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by specifying the target (TDengine/IoTDB) and explicitly saying 'instead of binding InfluxDB' and 'NOT a control-system write,' differentiating it from read/query tools and other write operations.

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 states when to use it: 'Writes already-collected points' and lists example input sources (output of interrogate / integrity_poll / read_points / monitor). It also gives a when-not: 'NOT a control-system write,' and an alternative: 'instead of binding InfluxDB.' This provides explicit usage context and exclusions.

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