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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/non-destructive profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that each call creates a new recorded attempt rather than updating an existing one — but says nothing about what 'scored' means, whether duplicate submissions are allowed or penalized, or what the call returns.

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 short sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the action and the artifacts being recorded. The repeat-call note is placed where it is immediately visible.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits where the scenario and choice IDs come from, what 'scored' entails, and what happens on repeated or invalid submissions — gaps an agent would need filled before calling confidently.

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 75%, so the schema already carries most parameter meaning; the description merely restates the conclusion, evidence, and optional reasoning concepts. It adds nothing about the required 'scenario' parameter or how scenario/choice IDs relate to one another, so it does not compensate for the remaining 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Record a scored incident conclusion, evidence and optional written reasoning.' That is concrete enough to know what the tool does, but it never distinguishes this from siblings such as morrowkin_submit_reproduction or the diagnostic-attempt tools, nor does it explain the 'Signal or Noise' framing that appears only in 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. obtaining a valid scenario/choice ID), and no guidance on when a submission should not be made. The only implicit guidance is 'Each call creates a recorded attempt,' which hints at repeat-call behavior but does not route the agent among siblings.

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