parameter_annotate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose an important behavioral constraint—'never infer a linear normalized-to-unit mapping'—and implies that evidence is required. However, it does not describe what happens on write, whether the operation is idempotent, or what the response/result looks like.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. The critical behavioral warning is placed after the main action without unnecessary elaboration, earning its place.

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 tool with four required parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too thin. It lacks guidance on how to identify a valid snapshot, what evidence should include, whether the operation creates or replaces an annotation, and what happens after invocation. The description is useful but not complete enough for reliable autonomous use.

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%, and the description does not explain the relationship between snapshot_id and parameter_id, the expected format of evidence, or what 'meaning' should contain. The parameter names are suggestive, but the description adds little beyond them and does not compensate for the complete lack of 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 uses a specific verb and object: 'Attach evidenced meaning to a known parameter snapshot'. It clearly identifies both the action and the resource being acted upon, and the added caution about not inferring a linear mapping distinguishes the intent from other parameter-related 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 use case is implied: annotate a known parameter snapshot with meaning and evidence. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites such as whether the snapshot must already exist or whether annotations can be updated.

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