copalibre_statistics_rebuild

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it declares the operation idempotent and safe to re-run, discloses that it writes directly against the database rather than the API, and confirms no API token is required. It omits runtime cost, locking/blocking behavior, and required permissions, which is why 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what it does, then when to use it, then the implementation/safety note. Every clause carries distinct information with no redundancy or 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 zero-annotation, no-output-schema repair operation, the description covers purpose, scope, triggers, safety, and auth requirements. Minor gaps remain — success/failure reporting, permissions, and expected duration — but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 50%: tournament_alias is already documented ('omit for all') in the schema, while organization_alias has no schema description. The description clarifies the relationship between the two (one tournament *within* an organization) but never explains what form an organization_alias takes, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 ('Recomputes every folded statistic total from source match facts') plus the exact scope options (organization or one tournament within it). No sibling tool touches statistics, and the description names both the domain object and the source of truth, so the agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

Gives concrete trigger conditions: after a data backfill, a statistics-engine fix, or to repair drift. It does not state when NOT to use it or name an alternative maintenance tool, but the sibling list contains no overlapping tool, so the routing guidance is effectively complete.

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