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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false; the description adds real behavioral context beyond them by promising the score is 'taken as it is, never rewritten' and that Cesure 'reads no page,' which independently corroborates the closed-world hint. It stops short of describing where the draft lands or what happens on repeated imports (relevant given non-idempotent).

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 action and accepted formats, followed by the exclusion rule. Two sentences, no filler; the stylized phrasing ('a score the person gives whole') is slightly harder to parse than plain language but does not waste space.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with an output schema present, the description covers accepted input formats, the excerpt-not-rewritten contract, and the invalid-link case. The remaining gap — where the draft is created and whether re-importing duplicates it — is modest given annotations and the output schema carry some of that burden.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the 'score' field including that it must be verbatim. The description restates the accepted formats and adds the 'verbatim' emphasis, but contributes little syntax or format detail beyond the schema — the baseline 3 for schema-covered parameters is appropriate.

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?

The description names a specific verb ('Open as a draft') and resource (a score) and enumerates the three accepted input forms: .cesure file text, AlphaTex, or an 'Open in Cesure' link. This makes the tool's function clear without opening the schema, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with close siblings like create_score, save_new_score, or open_in_cesure.

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?

It supplies one useful negative condition — links to non-score pages (video, recording) import nothing — which implicitly tells the agent what input is valid. However, it never names an alternative tool or states when to prefer create_score or open_in_cesure over this one, leaving routing to inference.

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