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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: upsert semantics ("creating the edge if DNA never suggested it"), the -1..1 scale, that only scores train DNA, and that a new score overwrites the previous one. It says nothing about permissions, idempotency across identical writes, or error behavior.

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?

Single dense sentence that front-loads the action and the score range, but it opens with a redundant REST path ("PUT /nodes/{nid}/edges/{eid}") that adds no selection value, and "e.g. scores you already have" / "Only scores train DNA" are grammatically muddled.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For an unannotated mutation tool with 0% parameter coverage the description covers the core mutation semantics (create-if-absent, overwrite), but leaves the id-role confusion and permission expectations unaddressed, so it is only adequate for correct invocation.

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 all three parameters are opaque (`nid`, `eid`, `score`). The description gives the score range (-1 to 1) and maps the ids to node/query roles, but the mapping is contradictory with the tool name — `eid` is called a "node" while the tool and endpoint are about an edge — leaving genuine ambiguity about what each id identifies.

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 states a specific verb and resource — recording a fit score for a node/query pair, with the -1..1 range spelled out — which is a distinct action from the structural create_edge/update_edge siblings. It does not explicitly name or exclude those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being told.

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?

"creating the edge if DNA never suggested it, e.g. scores you already have" hints at when this is appropriate (recording pre-existing human scores rather than authoring new edges), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to create_edge or update_edge. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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