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

Goes well beyond destructiveHint=true by disclosing that criteria are replaced wholesale with fresh ids, that existing evals keep scoring against their snapshotted criteria, and that a needs_confirmation response may come back. This is meaningful behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 what-it-does clause is front-loaded and the criteria-replacement warning follows immediately. The embedded instruction to 'say so, and offer to create a new eval' is slightly meta but earns its place as routing guidance.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers the mutation semantics, the confirmation flow, and the eval-snapshot consequence, while parameters are fully documented in the schema. Only the mechanics of the needs_confirmation response are left implicit.

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 is 3, but the description adds real semantics the schema doesn't carry: that criteria ids are regenerated on replacement and that the eval snapshot behavior affects whether the change is safe to make.

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+resource+field set: changes a rubric's title, description, visibility, or replaces its criteria. An agent can immediately distinguish this from caliper_rubrics_create/delete/get/list without opening a schema.

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 clear context for when the operation applies (changing mutable rubric fields, wholesale criteria replacement) and workflow guidance around eval snapshots, but never states explicit exclusions versus the create/delete siblings.

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