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

The annotations already flag destructiveHint: true, but the description adds no context about what is destroyed (e.g., whether it overwrites existing anchors). For a mutation tool, the description should disclose side effects beyond the generic annotation; it does not. This is a notable gap.

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, tightly-worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and scope, then adds the conditional behavior. Every word adds value.

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 tool's complexity (nested objects, 5 parameters, no output schema, destructive hint), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the input object's fields, what the generated anchors look like, or the destructive behavior. An agent would have to rely on the schema and sibling patterns to fully understand the call.

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 all parameters. It only explains the role of competency_id (limiting generation to one competency) but leaves instructions and source_stage unexplained. The 'levels 1-4' hint gives some context, but the other two fields remain ambiguous.

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 a specific verb (generate), resource (scorecard behavioral anchors), and scope (each draft competency or one competency when competency_id is supplied). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like generate_competencies and update_anchors by naming the exact output and the condition for targeting a single competency.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: it generates anchors for all competencies by default, or for a specific one when competency_id is provided. However, it does not mention exclusions or alternatives (e.g., using update_anchors if anchors already exist), so it stops short of fully routing the agent.

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