set_criteria

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the key behavioral detail that existing active criteria are replaced, and that the incoming criteria are user-reviewed. However, it does not clarify what happens to the old criteria or any other side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core action ('Replace') and contains no redundant words. It is concise and easy to parse.

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?

Together with a fully documented schema and an output schema, the description gives an agent sufficient understanding to call the tool: it replaces current criteria for a given task with reviewed statements and evidence policies. Minor gaps include whether the replacement is atomic or what happens to old criteria, but these are not critical given the annotations and schema.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for both task_id and the criteria array, including fields like required_evidence_kinds and rationale. The description's mention of 'statements and evidence policies' provides a high-level summary but does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Replace') on a clear resource ('active criteria') and describes what the replacement consists of ('user-reviewed statements and evidence policies'). It distinguishes this from sibling derive_criteria, which would generate criteria rather than replace them with reviewed ones.

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 phrase 'user-reviewed' implies this tool should be used after criteria have been reviewed and are ready to be activated. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over derive_criteria or other alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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