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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=false, so the lower bar applies. The description still adds real context beyond them: ordering guarantees, revision pinning, batch-vs-single semantics, and the 409/400 refusal behavior that returns errors instead of failing the call. It does not explain what edits overwrite, but the annotation covers the destructive signal.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by behavioral caveats. No wasted padding, though the opening clause ('edits the panel already drew itself') is slightly awkward to parse.

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?

This is a destructive, nested-object mutation with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, so the description should carry more. It covers error semantics and ordering well, but leaves the required score_id unexplained, the operation object shape unspecified, and the relationship between operation/operations/request_id partly ambiguous.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain operation vs operations and the request_id pairing, and implies revision is a concurrency guard. But score_id is unmentioned, the inner shape of operation objects is undocumented, and 'queue of {operation, request_id}' conflicts with request_id being a top-level schema property, leaving ambiguity.

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 (save) and resource (panel edits), scoped to 'the exact saved revision.' The phrase 'edits the panel already drew itself' implicitly distinguishes it from generic edit_score by tying it to panel-originated, revision-pinned edits, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

'App-only' signals a context restriction, and 'the panel already drew itself, in order, on the exact saved revision' implies when this applies. But there is no explicit when-not guidance relative to edit_score, apply_score_preview, or revise_score, which sit right next to it in the sibling list.

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