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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the required scopes (caliper:datasets:write and caliper:evals:write), that the resulting artifacts are user-owned and editable, and what is returned (both ids). It stops short of saying whether a re-run duplicates artifacts or how the approvalId confirmation flow behaves.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler: what it does first, then the return value and next step, then the permission requirement. Every sentence earns its place and the core action is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: the shape of the result (both ids), the required scopes, and the natural continuation (caliper_evals_create). Nothing essential to invoking it correctly is absent.

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 100%, so slug, workspace, and approvalId are already documented in the schema, including the enum and the 'omit on first call' note for approvalId. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 with concrete outcome: copies one starter into the workspace as a new dataset and a new rubric the user owns and can edit. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling caliper_starters_list (which only enumerates starters) and from caliper_datasets_create / caliper_rubrics_create (which create one artifact, not both).

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?

Names the follow-up step explicitly (caliper_evals_create binding the dataset and rubric to a flow or to 'external'), and the slug enum in the schema points back to caliper_starters_list as the source of valid input. It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g. preferring caliper_datasets_create when the user wants a blank dataset), so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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