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

Annotations flag it as a destructive write, and the description adds material behavior the annotations don't: criteria get fresh ids on replacement, existing evals are immutable snapshots that keep scoring with their original criteria, and the call may return `needs_confirmation`. This is exactly the kind of context an agent needs before mutating a shared object.

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 tightly-scoped sentences, front-loaded with the core mutation and followed by the snapshot caveat. The meta-instruction ('say so, and offer to create a new eval') is slightly directive for a description but still earns its place as agent 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?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the destructive-path semantics, the confirmation flow, and the downstream eval implications. It relies on the schema for workspace/approvalId details, which is reasonable given full schema coverage, leaving only minor gaps.

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 value beyond the schema by emphasizing passing the FULL criteria list and noting that criteria receive fresh ids — behavior the schema doesn't state.

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 (changes) on a specific resource (rubric) and enumerates the affected fields (title, description, visibility, criteria). It also clarifies the criteria semantics as a wholesale replacement rather than a diff, distinguishing it from a partial-update mental model.

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 workflow context: criteria edits replace everything, evals snapshot at creation, and the agent should surface that and offer to create a new eval when criteria change materially. It doesn't explicitly contrast against update-vs-create or other rubric siblings, but the in-context guidance is actionable.

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