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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that this is a mutating operation writing back to the `constellation_entries` table, and that it is free (0 credits). It does not say whether the rewrite is synchronous or long-running, whether it is idempotent, or whether manual position overrides are clobbered — gaps that matter for a destructive-ish bulk write.

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, then trigger, then cost, then scope caveat — a sensible order with little waste. The closing forward-looking note about 'a later phase' and the unified person-positions schema is roadmap trivia that does not help an agent decide or call correctly.

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 one-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, cost, mutation semantics, and scope exclusions. What remains unaddressed is execution behavior on large campaigns (duration, async handling) and what the caller gets back after the re-score.

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% with a single required parameter, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining *why* `campaign_id` is mandatory (the write-back target table) rather than merely restating the field name.

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 ('Re-score all constellation entries in a campaign') plus the concrete side effect ('rewrite queue positions from highest to lowest composite score'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like score_draft (single draft) and get_outreach_queue (read-only ordering).

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 an explicit trigger ('Use after new engagers or targets are added') and explicitly states what is NOT supported (segment- and url-list-scoped scoring), naming the substitute tools and the parameters to use instead. This is a complete when/when-not/alternative triad.

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