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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: re-posting replaces the scores for those criteria (a partial upsert), which is the key thing an agent must know before retrying or amending a score. It does not say whether the event must be live or whether the summary is replaced wholesale.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the authorization condition and then the action and payload. No filler, no repetition of what the schema already enforces (bounds, max lengths).

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 with a nested scores array and no output schema, the description covers the core contract but omits return behavior, event-state preconditions, and the identifier semantics for `team` and `criterion`. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would hit in practice.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and does give meaning to all five parameters at a high level (event, host key, one team, scored criteria with reasons, summary). However it leaves real ambiguity unresolved: whether `team` is an id or a name, whether `organizer_key` must be the caller's own key, and what happens to criteria not included in a re-post.

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 pair (post one team's scores against the event's criteria) with concrete detail on payload shape (0–10 per criterion, short reason, short summary). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like event_judging_packet or review_broadcast, though it never names an alternative tool 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?

"For an event's host (its organizer key)" establishes the authorization precondition for calling the tool, which is real usage context an agent needs before attempting it. There are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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