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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the critical non-obvious behavior: the edit creates a NEW rubric with a new id and slug, previously scored Runs remain attributed to the original criterion, and the response contains the new rubric. This is exactly the kind of behavioral nuance an agent needs and complements the destructiveHint annotation without contradicting it.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the core action and then efficiently explains the most important consequences: new id/slug, preservation of past Run attribution, and the response containing the new rubric. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description does a good job of noting that the response contains the new rubric and explaining the versioning side effect. Combined with the fully documented schema, the agent has enough context to invoke the tool. It falls slightly short of complete because it does not summarize the selected_automation_revision_id draft/active behavior, though the schema covers it.

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 100%, so all parameters are already well documented, including the complex selected_automation_revision_id behavior. The description mentions title and/or description at a high level but does not add new parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the action: edit a single Agent-specific evaluation rubric's title and/or description. It identifies the resource and the fields affected, so an agent can understand what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from related siblings such as createEvalRubric, replaceEvalRubrics, or updateCaseQueueEvalRubric.

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 implies the tool is for editing an existing rubric, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus creating, replacing, or deleting a rubric. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool mentions are provided, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name and context.

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