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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, yet the description never explains the destructive behavior: whether setting criteria replaces all existing criteria wholesale, merges with prior values, or is reversible. The word 'update' actually implies a partial modification, which sits uneasily with a non-idempotent, destructive write. With annotations covering the safety flags, the description adds almost no behavioral context beyond the field list.

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?

Two tight sentences with no padding, and the field list is front-loaded so an agent can skim the scope immediately. The only waste is the redundant restatement of the title at the start of the first sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema fully covers parameters and the desk_key credential. However, for a destructive, non-idempotent write tool, the description omits the one thing an agent most needs: what happens to previously set criteria. That leaves a meaningful gap for this complexity level.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the desk_key credential and its unrecoverable nature. The description's enumeration of fields adds nothing beyond naming them, so the baseline of 3 for a fully documented schema 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 pairs the verb 'set' with the resource 'Candidate Criteria' and then enumerates the specific fields it configures (target role, core skills, salary floor, remote policy, dealbreakers), so an agent knows exactly what is being written. It does not need to distinguish from siblings, which are unrelated tools (score_message, get_scoreboard, purge_data, etc.). The only weakness is that the first sentence simply restates the title.

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?

The phrase 'Use this to configure or update...' gives an implied usage context, but it is essentially a restatement of purpose rather than a conditional rule. No prerequisites, no when-not guidance, and no alternatives are named — though no sibling overlaps with this function, so the cost of that omission is low.

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