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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is largely covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: completing an action is what surfaces the next one, which no annotation conveys.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its consequence, followed by the procedure and the trigger. No 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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the side effect, the prerequisite lookup and the trigger condition. It could still note what happens on an ambiguous title match, which is why it is not a 5.

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% and the schema already explains that the value is the action's title or a partial match. The description's 'pass the action's title' merely restates this, so the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 (mark ... finished) and resource (brand's recommended action), and explains the effect that the item disappears and the next appears. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling skip_action, which is the obvious near-neighbor, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow ('Call my_actions first ... then pass the action's title') and a clear trigger ('when the user says they have done something Peak Answer recommended'). The one gap is that it never names skip_action as the alternative for actions the user did not complete.

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