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

It discloses that the operation queues work rather than blocking, explains the true/false return semantics including the not-found case, and notes the 10-minute background spawner context. This supplements the idempotent and non-destructive annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences front-load the action and trigger context, then state the exact return values. There is no filler or repeated schema content.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers triggering, use case, and return values adequately. It could be more complete by pointing to get_identity_analysis for retrieving the re-scored result, since the tool itself only confirms queuing.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single id parameter ('Tracked identity id.'), so the baseline applies. The description adds only that the id refers to a tracked identity and that an unknown id yields false, which is return behavior rather than new parameter detail.

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 ('Queue an immediate re-scoring') and a clear resource ('an identity'), and explains why it exists: to see the effect of edits without waiting for the background spawner. This clearly separates it from read-only sibling tools like get_identity_analysis and get_identity_history.

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 explicitly states when to use it: after editing an analyzer, config, dataset, or mapping. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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