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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope limits (tag immutable, no delete) but never explains what makes this destructive or whether changing type/scoreOrder invalidates existing scores — the highest-risk behavior an agent needs to know before calling.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the mutable fields and the minimum requirement, with the two prohibitions trailing as a semicolon clause. No redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, it covers mutable fields, minimum input, and two hard limits. Missing is the effect on existing leaderboard entries when type or scoreOrder changes, and whether the updated leaderboard is returned — minor but relevant for a destructive write.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above it by adding a constraint the schema does not encode — that at least one of the three optional fields must be supplied, which tells the agent this is a partial patch rather than a full replace. It also clarifies that leaderboardId is the immutable tag, reinforcing the schema hint.

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 ("Change") plus the resource ("a leaderboard") and enumerates exactly which fields are mutable: name, type, score order. That is enough to separate it from create_leaderboard, list_leaderboards and update_application_form without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition ("at least one is required") and two explicit exclusions: the tag cannot change and deletion is not available. It does not name an alternative tool or describe the read-first workflow (list_leaderboards to obtain the tag), so it falls short of full when/when-not routing.

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