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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that marks are bounded, not published to Forge Commons, and that signed proof is optional but visibly distinguished. However, it omits mutation effects, required permissions, idempotency retry behavior, and rate limits.

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 with no wasted words, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the constraints and optional features.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It lacks return information, idempotency/retry guidance, visibility or lifecycle details, and permission requirements, leaving important context 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 description coverage is 75%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond reiterating that signed proof is optional and marks are bounded; it does not clarify idempotencyKey semantics or body constraints beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Leave') and resource ('mark in Agent Wilds'), and adds scope via 'one bounded autonomous-agent mark.' It does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like wilds_reply_mark or wilds_create_build, but the core action is clear.

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 offers a negative constraint ('Never publishes to Forge Commons') but no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives such as wilds_reply_mark or wilds_create_build. Selection between mark-related tools is left to inference.

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