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

Annotations mark this as non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world mutation. The description adds context annotations cannot: it queues a hosted job (async behavior), tells the agent to use get_job for the result, and mandates real user approval — a genuine auth/process constraint. It doesn't disclose what happens to existing weighting definitions or how expectedRevision conflicts are handled.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the async behavior, then the approval constraint. No filler.

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?

Covers the mutation's async nature and approval requirement, which are the non-obvious parts of calling it. It leaves gaps — revision conflicts, the meaning of tableIds/definition — but with 8 required params and no output schema, what is present is the highest-value context. Adequate though not exhaustive.

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 only 25% with 8 required parameters, and the description names none of them. The approval precondition maps to the approval parameter, and the job mention maps to requestId, but the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that. This is borderline given the low coverage but does not regress below baseline.

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+resource: 'Create and assign a validated weighting definition.' This distinguishes it from siblings like apply_raking_weights or preview_raking_weights, which apply/preview rather than create+assign a persisted weighting definition.

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 description says to use get_job to retrieve the result, which implies async usage context, and gives a hard precondition (obtain actual user approval). But it doesn't state when to use this tool versus preview_raking_weights or apply_raking_weights, which is the more likely confusion given the sibling set.

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