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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does most of it: it discloses cost ('Free'), overwrite semantics on re-record, a 16 KB payload cap, and the return shape { ok, simulation_id }. It still omits permission/auth requirements and whether the replaced record is recoverable.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and purpose, then constraints, then return value; roughly four tight sentences with little waste. The 'so CrowdOS can keep calibrating' clause and the 'Free.' fragment are mild padding but serve selection decisions.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description covers the critical gaps: the at-least-one-input rule, overwrite behavior, payload limit, cost, and a lightweight return contract. The 'notes' field is left to the schema and no error behavior is described, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description adds real value beyond the schema: the at-least-one-of constraint across accuracy_rating/ground_truth/ground_truth_data is not encoded in the schema, and it supplies a concrete example and size limit for the nested ground_truth_data object.

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: record real-world outcomes for a study you previously ran, with the downstream purpose (calibration) named. It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_simulation or list_simulations, though it never explicitly contrasts with a near-neighbor.

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?

Gives a clear trigger ('after a study you ran') plus a hard input constraint ('Pass at least one of: ...') and an upsert rule ('Recording again replaces the earlier record'). No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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