Update a scoreboard

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

Annotations already declare the operation destructive, open-world, and idempotent, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: updates are atomic, changes appear publicly immediately, revision conflicts require re-reading, and identical retry IDs return the previous result. It does not discuss permissions or the full scope of what may be overwritten, so it stops short of a 5.

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 dense and front-loaded: it starts with the operations, then gives revision handling and retry semantics. Every sentence carries operational value with no filler.

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 destructive, open-world mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers atomicity, public visibility, conflict handling, and retry idempotency well. It is missing explicit sibling selection guidance and does not reconcile the empty input schema with its references to team IDs, revisions, and retry IDs.

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?

The tool has zero declared parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds conceptual guidance about stable team IDs, last read revision, and retry IDs, though those inputs are not present in the empty schema, which limits how actionable that guidance can be.

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 names specific operations (set exact scores, increment scores, rename teams, change title) on an implied scoreboard resource, so the agent can tell what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate this from siblings like hand_off_scoreboard or get_scoreboard, which keeps it from 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?

It gives useful operating guidance for conflicts and retries, including reading the board again on revision_conflict and not blindly replaying stale increments. However, it does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hand_off_scoreboard or get_scoreboard.

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