rew_write_house_curve

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a local, non-destructive write. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it writes a file into REW_OUTPUT_DIR and then triggers a load via an endpoint. It does not disclose overwrite behavior for an existing filename, error handling, or what the load step returns.

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 compact sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the secondary load step following logically. No wasted wording, though 'discovered house curve endpoint' could be stated more concretely.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main action and the point format but leaves the filename semantics and the result of the load step unexplained. An agent could call it, but would be guessing about overwrite behavior and success/failure signals.

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 must compensate. It does explain that points are [Hz, dB] pairs, which the schema alone does not convey, but it says nothing about the filename parameter (extension, overwrite, path handling) or the 2-10000 point bounds.

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: create a REW house curve text file from [Hz, dB] points. It also names the output location (REW_OUTPUT_DIR) and the follow-on load step, which no sibling tool covers. The phrase 'discovered house curve endpoint' is slightly vague but the core action is 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no prerequisites such as whether REW must be running or the endpoint must be discovered first. The 'Then load through...' clause hints at a workflow but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice versus rew_call_api or rew_command.

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