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 the side effects (flips to executed, sets metadata.markedManuallyAt and metadata.executedManually=true, card disappears from Today's Loop). It does not mention reversibility or permission requirements, but for this simple action the core behavior is clearly stated.

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?

Two sentences, with the purpose and usage rule stated upfront. The inclusion of examples and the alternative tool is efficient and directly useful. No filler words.

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 simple state-change tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, this description is complete. It explains the action's effect, when to use it, and the alternative. The agent can confidently select and invoke it without additional context.

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%, so the schema already describes all three parameters. The description adds the overall context (e.g., note stored in metadata.markedManuallyNote) but doesn't significantly go beyond the schema descriptions. Baseline of 3 is appropriate due to high schema coverage.

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 clearly specifies the verb ('mark as completed'), the resource ('next-move action'), and the condition ('when the founder has done the move BUT there's no URL to record'). It also provides concrete examples (reply_to_commenters, dm_engagers) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool chieflab_record_manual_publish.

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 gives explicit 'when to use' guidance (no URL to record) and 'when not to use' with a named alternative (chieflab_record_manual_publish for moves with a URL). It also explains why the alternative is preferred, noting that it records the URL and marks executed simultaneously.

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