pick_winner

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It valuably discloses the side effect — mutating an asset's header to set `winner:` — but says nothing about required permissions, what happens to a previously chosen winner, whether the file must already exist in the project, or whether the change is reversible.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and the parenthetical mechanism earning its place. Nothing extraneous, though the brevity contributes to the gaps elsewhere.

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 mutation tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is thin. It does not clarify parameter overlap, preconditions, or outcome, leaving the agent to guess how `path`, `file`, and `project` interact before making an irreversible-looking 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 coverage is 67%, below the threshold where the schema alone suffices, so the description should compensate and does not. It never explains the relationship between `path` (workspace root relative), `file` (workspace path of chosen image), and the optional `project`, leaving a genuinely confusing overlap between the two required path parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Choose the winning image for an asset') and adds a concrete mechanism ('sets `winner:` in its header'), which distinguishes it from the generic workspace_write sibling. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives named (e.g., use workspace_write for generic header edits). The only implied context is that an asset with candidate images exists, which the agent must infer.

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