nexo_impact_score

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It says 'compute and persist' indicating a write operation, but does not explain side effects (e.g., overwriting existing score), required permissions, or whether calls are idempotent.

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 sentence that packs the verb, resource, version, and purpose efficiently. No redundant phrasing or filler.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context: return value, whether the score is returned or just persisted, idempotency, and typical range of scores. The tool is simple but the description leaves gaps.

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 0%, but the description only mentions 'followup' generically. It does not elaborate on what a valid followup_id looks like, where to obtain it, or any constraints. The field name is self-explanatory but not enriched.

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 clearly states the action (compute and persist), the specific version (Impact Scoring v1), the target (a followup), and the purpose (queue prioritization by expected impact). It distinguishes from sibling tools like nexo_followup_get or nexo_confidence_check.

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 description implies usage when a followup's impact score is needed for prioritization, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., other scoring tools), prerequisites, or when not to use.

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