set_screening_criteria

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partially covered. Yet the description says nothing about the destructive consequence — that setting criteria starts a new revision and re-screens everything — which the schema only reveals under 'replace'. For a mutation with real re-screening side effects, this is a significant disclosure gap.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The trailing 'Rules: guide("screening")' is cryptic and reads as a stray directive rather than a useful rule, slightly weakening structure.

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 not be explained, and parameter docs are complete. But for a destructive, re-screening mutation, the description omits the behavioral consequences an agent needs, leaving a real gap despite the rich 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, including the key nuance on 'replace' (new revision, re-screens everything), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes the include/exclude purpose already documented, adding no new parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (Save) and resource (inclusion/exclusion criteria for screening), which is clear. However it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like record_screening_decisions or start_search, so an agent cannot route confidently on the description alone.

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 hint is 'Rules: guide("screening")', which points to a sibling tool for methodology rules rather than explaining when to call this tool versus alternatives. It implies a mandatory procedural step but never states when this must be invoked relative to screening.

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