Score one cell

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

The description adds key behavioral details beyond the annotations: re-scoring overwrites the cell and marks previous analysis stale. This is crucial side-effect information that annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) alone do not convey—the idempotent hint correctly signals overwrite behavior, but the 'marks stale' consequence is non-obvious and important.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the tool's purpose followed by usage advice and a critical behavioral note. No wasted words.

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 output schema is present, the description need not explain return values. It covers the core operation, a key side effect, and hints at integration with analyze. However, it could be clearer about how this tool fits into the overall decision workflow with siblings like what_if or start_decision.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all five parameters, including the scoring range and rationale requirements. The description adds no additional parameter details; a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action: 'Score one option against one criterion (one cell of the decision matrix).' This distinguishes it as a single-cell scoring operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like analyze, which likely aggregates scores.

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 advises to 'Score each cell independently and honestly,' implying the tool is used per-cell. It also notes that 'analyze reports exactly which judgments the result hinges on,' hinting at a downstream relationship, but does not state when not to use it or when to prefer analyze directly.

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