Rank naming candidates

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: atomicity ('every ranking applies or none does'), scoped side effects ('changes ONLY the rank field'), required permission ('naming:write scope'), and cost ('spends no AI credits'). This completely carries the transparency burden.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose and constraints, rank semantics, side effects/alternative, and usage/requirements. The text is front-loaded with the core action and contains no redundancy.

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?

Despite the absence of annotations and output schema, the description covers atomicity, side-effect scope, permission, cost, and when-to-use versus alternatives. Together with the rich input schema, this forms a complete behavioral contract for the tool.

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% and already provides detailed parameter descriptions (rank semantics, candidateId source, expectedUpdatedAt's optimistic concurrency). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Assign explicit user-facing priority ranks'), names the resource ('up to 100 candidates on one naming board'), and scopes the action clearly. It also distinguishes from the sibling 'move_name_candidates' by explicitly stating this changes only the rank field.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('express a deliberate shortlist order') and when not to ('not to record research'). It also directs to the alternative tool: 'use move_name_candidates when you want to progress a candidate or record a decision.'

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