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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two useful behavioral facts: only scores train DNA, and a new score overwrites the previous one. It omits permission requirements, reversibility, and what the PATCH returns.

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?

A compact two-part sentence; the endpoint prefix and semantic range are front-loaded. No wasted filler, though the endpoint notation is arguably redundant with the tool identity.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a mutation tool with zero annotations and three undocumented parameters, the description leaves gaps around prerequisites and effect scope that would help an agent call it correctly.

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%, so the description must carry the load. It does clarify the score parameter's range and semantics (-1 wrong to 1 perfect), which is genuinely additive, but nid and eid remain entirely unexplained (e.g., eid's origin, format, or relationship to create_edge's return).

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 action (scoring an edge result) tied to the resource returned by create_edge, with a defined range of -1 to 1. It is distinguishable from list/create/delete siblings, though the mapping from the tool name 'update_edge' to 'score' takes a sentence of parsing.

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 (score results produced by create_edge) and states the replacement rule, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus put_edge or update_node. The condition for invoking it is inferable but not spelled out.

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