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

Annotations only say this is a non-read, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that by warning that development-window dates must not be substituted because the protected data layer applies the development boundary during measurements, and by explaining scope inheritance. It does not fully disclose replacement/overwrite behavior involving rebaseReason, but nothing contradicts the annotations.

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 sentences front-load the purpose, then add the two most decision-relevant constraints. Every sentence contributes, with no filler.

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 16-parameter write operation with sparse annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical workflow link to hypothesisId, scope inheritance, and date handling. It is not exhaustive about edge cases such as replacing an existing active protocol, but the essential call path is clear.

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 50% schema description coverage, the description compensates by naming the key persisted concepts and adding specific semantics not in the schema: omit scope fields to inherit and never substitute development-window dates. It does not explain every optional field, but schema descriptions cover the remaining major parameters.

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 action, 'Persist', the resource (experiment protocol fields tied to hypothesisId returned by create_research_hypothesis), and the exact fields involved: market scope, split, metric, min trades, and rejection criteria. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling hypothesis-creation and experiment-closing tools.

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 gives workflow context by requiring the hypothesisId from create_research_hypothesis and gives a scoping rule for durable workflows (omit scope fields to inherit, or repeat exactly). It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or named alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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