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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does reveal that the tool selects and records (a write-like action), but it does not explain whether the winner selection is permanent, whether it overwrites an existing selection, or what side effects occur on the experiment.

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 tight sentence with no filler, front-loading the primary action before the scoring detail. It is well-structured for quick parsing, even if some semantic information is missing.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, key information is missing: parameter semantics, when to invoke it relative to experiment lifecycle, and what the selection implies for the experiment. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for these gaps.

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 must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It only loosely hints at 'score' via 'bounded score' and at 'item_id' via 'experiment result', but it never explains what experiment_id or item_id actually refer to or how they relate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Select') and resource ('completed experiment result') and adds the action of recording a bounded score, so an agent can tell this is the winner-declaring tool among experiment siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'completed experiment result' implies the tool should be used after an experiment has finished, which is some usage context. However, it does not say when not to use it or mention alternatives like swarme_experiment_status or swarme_experiment_create.

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