create_metric_data_points

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and mentions the input shape ('array of values with optional timestamps'), but fails to disclose whether the operation is additive, replaces existing data, requires the metric to exist, or how errors are handled. This is a minimal behavioral description, similar to the MID-level update_drive example.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides a brief summary of the input. Every word contributes value.

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 tool is relatively simple with only two parameters and no output schema. The description covers the basic purpose and input shape, but given there are no annotations, it could be more complete by mentioning what happens on success or any restrictions. However, the low complexity and full schema coverage make the description minimally sufficient.

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%, with both parameters and their properties described in detail. The description adds little beyond what the schema already states ('values' maps to data_points, and 'timestamps' are mentioned but already documented in the schema). According to the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Create data points') and the specific resource ('DAKboard metric'), making it distinct from sibling tools like 'delete_metric_data_points' or 'list_metrics'. The verb and object are specific and unambiguous.

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 usage (created for adding data points) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. There is no mention of 'use this when you need to add new data' or contrast with deletion/retrieval tools.

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