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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that completion is DERIVED rather than set, that 'dropped' is kept for the record but excluded from progress, and that 'planned' clears the overlay. It does not cover permissions/auth or error behavior for invalid itemIds, leaving a small 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?

Front-loads the core action and states before the NOTE. Dense but each clause earns its place; the state definitions are slightly redundant with the enum descriptions in the schema.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, allowed states, itemId provenance, and the critical derived-completion semantics plus cross-tool routing. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3), and the description adds beyond it by specifying the source of itemId ('Get itemIds from get_focus') and restating the state semantics. Marginal but genuine added value.

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 (set) and resource (manual state of a single item in the focus plan), then enumerates the three allowed states with their meanings. It also disambiguates from siblings by explicitly stating that 'done' is not settable here, so an agent can distinguish it from set_intervention/complete_intervention.

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 states when-not-to-use ('you can NOT set an item to done here') and routes to the correct alternatives by item type ('tackle' -> set_intervention, 'check' -> complete_intervention). It also tells the agent where to obtain itemIds (get_focus).

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