create-rum-metric

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the core behavior (creating a metric, mutation) and mentions aggregation types, filters, and group-by. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting existing metrics), rate limits, or permission requirements. The information is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key action and provides essential details. No redundant or unnecessary words; every part earns 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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, including nested groupBy, enums, and conditional fields) and lack of output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain the output, error conditions, or parameter dependencies (e.g., path required for distribution, uniquenessWhen for session/view). Adequate for basic understanding but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters. The description mentions 'filters and group-by' but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., the interaction between fields, default behaviors, or format constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool creates a metric based on RUM data, specifying the aggregation types (count or distribution) and mentioning filters and group-by. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like aggregate-rum (which queries aggregated data) and other create-* tools (which create different resources).

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 when creating a RUM metric with specified aggregation, filters, and group-by, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., aggregate-rum or query-metrics for ad-hoc aggregations). No exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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