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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, setting a low bar for the description. The description usefully adds that stale suggestions are rejected (an optimistic-concurrency behavior not in the schema), but it never says what state is destroyed or overwritten by applying a suggestion, which matters for a destructive mutation.

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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the constraint immediately after. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 destructive, all-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description is minimal: it omits what the applied edit changes, whether prior edits are discarded, and what happens on revision mismatch (error vs. no-op). Annotations cover the safety profile, but the consequences of the write remain underspecified.

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 67%: 'revision' and 'preview_id' are documented in the schema, while 'score_id' is undocumented in both places. The phrase 'stale suggestions' gives a hint that revision is a staleness check, but the description adds no format or interaction detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and object ('Save a suggestion the user explicitly accepted'), and the name plus title reinforce that this applies a previewed edit. It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or contrasts with its obvious siblings (discard_score_preview, preview_score_edit, save_score_edits), so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

'The user explicitly accepted' implies the triggering condition, and 'Stale suggestions are rejected' hints at a failure mode. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of discard_score_preview or save_score_edits, and no prerequisite flow (preview first, then apply) is spelled out.

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