set_screening_criteria

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false/openWorldHint=false, and 'Save' implies mutation, so the direction is consistent. However, the description omits the significant behavioral trait that supplying replace=true starts a new revision and re-screens everything (only present in the schema), and says nothing about overwrite semantics or required run state. Minimal value added beyond 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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the purpose stated first. The second sentence ('Rules: guide("screening")') is cryptic internal shorthand that spends a sentence without conveying actionable meaning to an outside agent.

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 and schema coverage is complete, so return values and parameter details are handled elsewhere. What is missing is the usage context (where this fits relative to start_search and record_screening_decisions) for a mutation tool whose replace flag is destructive to prior screening work.

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 run_id, include, exclude and replace are all documented in the schema, including the consequential replace behavior. The description adds no parameter-level meaning of its own, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource: save inclusion/exclusion criteria for screening. This clearly separates it from screening-execution siblings like next_screening_batch and record_screening_decisions. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so 4 rather than 5.

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 only usage signal is the opaque 'Rules: guide("screening")' line, which does not state when to call this versus alternatives such as record_screening_decisions, nor any prerequisites or sequencing. An agent can infer this is a setup step but gets no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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