record

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure and does it well: it names the two files touched, explains that the leaderboard is derived deterministically from every log under results/ (reproducibility rationale), and spells out verdict-dependent cell contents ('faster' vs 'no gain'/'incorrect'/'invalid'). This is beyond what any schema could convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the two primary effects (write file, regenerate leaderboard), then the verdict-dependent cell rule, then caller obligations, then parameter hints. Slightly dense but each sentence carries distinct information; nothing is 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?

For a 5-parameter, annotation-free mutation tool with no output schema, the description explains the side effects and artifact semantics thoroughly but omits the shape expected for the required `verify_result` payload and the role of `cwd`, which an agent needs to call it correctly the first time.

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%, so the description must compensate; it does so for `who` ('says honestly who produced the candidate', with examples) and `note` ('one-line what changed'), and implies `target` via the output path. However, `verify_result` (the required, polymorphic object-or-string input) and `cwd` are left entirely unexplained, so compensation is only partial.

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 and two concrete artifacts: writing the verify() result to results/<target>/<timestamp>.json and regenerating LEADERBOARD.md from the raw logs. That is clearly distinct from siblings like verify, bench, or profile, which produce measurements rather than persisting them.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it ('after every verify(), win or lose') and gives a hard prohibition ('never edit LEADERBOARD.md by hand'). The agent has no ambiguity about sequencing relative to the verify sibling.

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