create_score

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes parameters but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as authorization requirements, whether scores can be overwritten, side effects, or error conditions. It only states the mutation action ('Create').

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 extremely concise, using a single introductory sentence followed by a clear bullet list of parameters. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers parameter semantics well but omits crucial context like return value, error handling, and potential side effects. It meets minimum adequacy but leaves gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining each parameter's purpose and providing examples (e.g., value interpretation for different data_types, optionality of observation_id). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's raw type definitions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a score on a trace or observation.' It uses specific verb ('create') and resource ('score'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_scores and others.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it or list prerequisites. There is no explicit usage context or exclusion criteria.

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