record_measure_observation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does disclose three key behaviors: recording, computing field changes, and updating the watch snapshot, plus a non-publication side effect. It does not, however, explain side effects of expected_revision, error/rejection behavior, or the meaning of 'official-source observation' at the operation level.

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, front-loaded with the action and containing no filler. Every clause adds a distinct behavioral fact.

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?

This is a complex 7-parameter mutation with a nested 15-field object, no output schema, and no annotations; the two sentences do not equip an agent to form a correct invocation. Critical gaps include expected_revision's role, relationship to watch snapshot updates, and return or verification behavior.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate by explaining key parameters such as expected_revision, current, and retrieval_status, but it mentions none. Property names in the schema provide some guessable meaning, yet the 7-parameter tool's crucial semantics—especially the nested 'current' object and revision guard—are left undocumented.

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 uses specific verbs—record, compute, update—against identifiable resources: an official-source observation, material field changes, and the watch snapshot. The closing 'Does not publish' distinguishes it from publishing or ingestion flows and clarifies its scope relative to sibling record_* tools.

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?

It provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives; an agent must infer from the name that it is for observations. The only exclusion, 'Does not publish,' is a behavioral note, not a selection criterion among siblings like record_discovery_candidate or review_candidate.

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