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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. For a mutation tool it says nothing about idempotency, reversibility, whether marking done triggers notifications or downstream state changes, or what happens if the objective is already done. Only the description sentence itself is available, and it is silent on all of this.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words, and the intent is front-loaded. It is not padded, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency — nothing about state outcomes is conveyed.

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 state-mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two of three parameters undocumented. The description would need to explain side effects and ID provenance for an agent to invoke it with confidence, and it does not.

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 only 33%: notification_message is documented in the schema, but objectiveId and captureJobId are bare strings with no description anywhere. The description does not compensate by explaining where these IDs come from or whether captureJobId scopes the objective lookup.

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 verb ('mark') and a resource ('a specific objective done'), so the agent knows this changes objective status. However, 'done' is never defined (completed? closed? archived?), and there is no explicit differentiation from siblings like redo_objective or complete_step, which an agent could easily confuse with this.

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 guidance on when to use this versus redo_objective, complete_step, or approve_checklist, all of which appear in the sibling list and involve objective/step state changes. No preconditions (e.g., that a capture job must be active) are stated.

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