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

The annotations already establish the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not marked destructive, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond 'Persist.' It does not disclose that an existing active hypothesis/protocol can be replaced via rebaseReason, nor the idempotency-key requirement, both of which are material for a mutating action.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the essential purpose immediately and earns its place.

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?

Despite a rich schema, this is a mutating 9-parameter tool with no output schema and no usage or side-effect guidance in the description. Important operational details like rebase behavior, run binding defaults, and idempotency requirements are left entirely to the schema, making the description incomplete for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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 89%, so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The description adds little beyond restating that the hypothesis is falsifiable, which the statement parameter already says. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb ('Persist') and resource ('one falsifiable hypothesis'), and positions it as the thing the next candidate and protocol must test. It distinguishes the tool's artifact from related sibling tools like propose_strategy_candidate and define_experiment_protocol, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 'that the next candidate and protocol must test' implies the tool is used early in the research pipeline, before defining a candidate or protocol. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over related tools, nor any exclusions or alternatives.

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