record_triage_scores

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, meaning re-recording can overwrite prior scores, yet the description never says whether scores can be revised, appended, or clobbered. It also omits the concurrency role of 'revision' (stale writes presumably rejected), which is essential to invoking a non-idempotent mutation correctly.

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?

One short sentence with the key qualifier ('0-3', 'title scores') front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient but arguably under-specified for a destructive bulk write with a 500-item cap.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the schema covers the score scale and ID provenance. However, for a destructive, non-idempotent bulk mutation gated by a revision token, the description should explain the write/revise semantics; that gap leaves the definition only minimally adequate.

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%: run_id and revision carry descriptions pointing at start_search and next_triage_batch, and the score scale is documented in the nested TriageScore definition. The description merely restates the 0-3 range, adding no meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline at this coverage.

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 ('Record') and resource ('0-3 title scores') with a stated purpose ('decide which articles each session screens'). It does not distinguish itself from near-siblings like record_screening_decisions or record_extraction, which also write per-article judgments, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus record_screening_decisions or record_extraction, and no stated prerequisite ordering relative to next_triage_batch. The only hint of context is 'each session,' which is not an actionable condition.

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