Set fitness delta

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

Since all annotations are false, the description carries the full burden. It discloses write semantics ('last write wins'), silent success, and the exact failure mode with 'missing: <id>' and exit 5, plus data surfacing in DOR breakdowns and execution packets. No contradiction with annotations.

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, each earning its place: definition, typical usage/timing, and error/alternative routing. Front-loaded with the core semantics and no fluff.

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 simple 3-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, semantics, timing, side effects (DOR breakdowns/execution packets), error behavior, and alternative tool routing. An agent has all the information needed to invoke it correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description adds conceptual meaning on top by explaining that +N advances the goal, 0 is neutral, and -N regresses it, and by clarifying that unknown work item or goal ids fail with a specific error. This modest added value justifies a 4.

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 ('Record') and resource ('how much one work item contributes toward one goal') and defines the delta semantics (+N advances, 0 neutral, -N regresses). It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by stating 'this tool only edits the delta' and naming set/field as alternatives.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context: 'Typically set at creation and re-set when scope changes.' It also gives alternative routing: 'Use set for scalar attributes and field for list fields; this tool only edits the delta,' telling the agent when not to use it.

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