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, yet it discloses nothing about effects: what 'distinct' actually changes, whether it is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to previously marked pairs. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the per-type parameter routing. Every clause earns its place.

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 nested, 7-parameter, annotation-free mutation tool the description covers the essential parameter routing but omits behavioral context: reversibility, effect of the operation, and error conditions. Adequate for invocation, incomplete for understanding consequences.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage on 7 parameters, the description does the heavy lifting by explaining the identifier scheme per entityType (TestLocators for TEST, ordinals for STORY/SCENARIO/ISSUE, titles for EVENT), which maps directly onto the focus/other param families. It doesn't clarify narrower details like the string-vs-number ordinal union, but this is substantial compensation.

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 clear verb and resource ('Mark two same-type entities as distinct'), and the word 'same-type' is a meaningful scoping constraint. However, it doesn't differentiate itself from closely related siblings such as unmark-entity-distinct or mark-semantic-tests-distinct, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 implies usage by mapping each entityType to its identifier scheme ('TEST uses TestLocators; STORY/SCENARIO/ISSUE use ordinals; EVENT uses titles'), which is real guidance. But it never states when to reach for this tool versus unmark-entity-distinct or mark-semantic-tests-distinct, and gives no prerequisites.

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