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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds the concrete consequence of the destructive replace, namely that existing judgements become stale until score_role_person runs again. It also discloses that the web app mirrors these criteria, which is context the annotations cannot carry. It doesn't cover the 8-item cap or permission requirements.

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-loaded with the mutation, then the authoring rule, then the downstream consequence. No filler; the example earns its space by making 'specific beats generic' concrete.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers what gets written, how to phrase it, and what happens to dependent scores afterward. Missing only the item-count limit and any permission prerequisite for a destructive, role-wide rewrite.

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 50% and the criteria array is already richly documented in-schema; the description adds emphasis on writing specific, user-voiced criteria with a contrastive example. role_id remains undocumented in both places, so the description does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Replace a role's criteria') and defines the criteria model (need + importance) without opening the schema. It does not distinguish itself from the close sibling suggest_role_criteria, so an agent must infer the difference between generating and persisting criteria.

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?

Implies usage through 'Use the user's words; specific beats generic' and by noting people become out of date until score_role_person re-judges them, which is real workflow guidance. It never states when to prefer this over suggest_role_criteria or when not to replace existing criteria.

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