annotate_test

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'Supports range annotations and dashboard association' and has a default tag, which adds useful behavioral context beyond the basic 'add' action. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like permissions needed, whether annotations are editable/deletable, or response format, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes key features. Every clause adds value (e.g., event types, range support, default tag), with no redundant or vague phrasing, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose and some behavioral traits but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or return values. Given the complexity of creating annotations with multiple parameters, more context would be beneficial to fully guide the agent.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'range annotations' (hinting at time/timeEnd usage) and 'dashboard association' (hinting at dashboardUid), but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Add a Grafana annotation') and resource ('on a sensor for test events'), with specific event types listed (start/end/result/rate change). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on annotation creation rather than querying or dashboard management, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives for similar annotation tasks.

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 context through 'for test events' and 'Tagged with ramp-test by default,' suggesting it's designed for test-related annotations. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus other annotation methods or tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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