Save assessment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real side effect: it sets the status to 'assessed' (or 'dismissed' per the dismiss param). It says nothing about permissions, idempotency, whether an existing assessment is overwritten, or what a successful write returns.

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, no filler, and the action is front-loaded before the status side effect. The only dead weight is the unexplained parenthetical about the non-sampling path.

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?

This is a mutation tool with eight parameters (five required), no annotations, and no output schema, so the description needs to do more work. It never explains the relationship to assess_todo, the sampling distinction, or any failure/authorization behavior, leaving significant gaps for a write operation.

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%, so the eight parameters and their meanings are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Write an effort assessment back to a to-do'), which is concrete enough to act on. However, '(the non-sampling path)' is internal jargon that does not help distinguish this tool from the sibling assess_todo, leaving the core purpose only partially differentiated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative assess_todo. The parenthetical '(the non-sampling path)' is an implicit hint about differing execution modes, but it is not explained, so an agent cannot reliably choose between the two.

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