set_eqs_test_scoring

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, so the safety bar is lowered. The description adds real value by disclosing that changes PERSIST on the asset, that the fields are genuine UPROPERTYs, and that the response echoes values read back from the object. It omits whether unspecified parameters are overwritten with their defaults, which matters given the destructive hint.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by a useful persistence note and a return-shape list. Slightly long parenthetical in sentence one, but each element (persistence, property mapping, return fields) earns its place given there is no output schema.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the return shape it needs since no output schema exists. It would be complete if it warned that omitted parameters may be reset to their schema defaults, a relevant risk for a destructive write.

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 the schema already documents all nine parameters with defaults and allowed values. The description only restates the property names in its return list and adds no format or interaction semantics beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Sets scoring/filter parameters on a test within a query option') and names the concrete UEnvQueryTest properties affected. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_eqs_test or remove_eqs_test, which create/remove rather than configure.

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 you must already have a query option and test (via test_index/option_index), but never states prerequisites or routing to alternatives such as add_eqs_test if the test doesn't exist yet. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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