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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, yet the description still adds substantial value: it discloses the atomic priority recalculation, that updated_at changes, the INVALID_DIMENSIONS error behavior for unknown keys, and the required contributor/editor/owner role. These are real behavioral facts not present in structured fields.

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 core action, followed by side effects and the auth requirement in a compact two-sentence structure. The parenthetical dimension enumeration is dense but earns its place by mapping allowed keys.

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 nested objects and no output schema, the description covers side effects, error behavior, and authorization adequately. Minor gaps remain around idempotency_key and note semantics, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 explains the 'dimensions' object well (framework-specific keys, invalid key behavior), but says nothing about 'idempotency_key' or 'note' semantics or constraints, leaving two required parameters undocumented.

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 (upsert) and resource (the current user's vote in the experiment's framework) with the exact dimension keys for ICE/PIE/RICE and custom frameworks. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like hypotize_experiment_update or hypotize_experiment_record_outcome.

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 dimension list implies usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or naming of alternatives (e.g., how it differs from recording an outcome). The reader must infer when voting is appropriate versus other experiment mutations.

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