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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add two behavioral facts: the marking is symmetric, and Agent/API calls are attributed with marked_by_user_id = 0. However, it omits whether this is a mutation with side effects, whether it is reversible (the unmark-entity-distinct sibling implies so), idempotency, and permission requirements.

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 with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. The trailing sentence about marked_by_user_id = 0 is cryptically phrased but relevant rather than redundant.

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?

A mutation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, nested-object parameters, and no schema description coverage needs more than two short sentences. Missing are the TestLocator structure, the effect of marking, error/edge cases, and permission context, so an agent lacks what it needs to call this confidently.

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 0% and both parameters are nested objects with four sub-fields (fileName, testName, testSuite, folderPath) that are entirely undocumented. The description gestures at the input shape with 'TestLocators' and distinguishes the two roles ('two... tests', 'distinct'), but does not explain the sub-field semantics or the focus vs distinct distinction, leaving most parameter meaning unstated.

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), the exact resource (two SmartTests), and the resulting state ('legitimately distinct'), plus the input mechanism (TestLocators). An agent can distinguish this from unmark-entity-distinct and mark-entity-distinct, though the description never explicitly differentiates from those siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection guidance. The word 'symmetric' hints at behavior but does not explain when an agent should call this versus mark-entity-distinct, nor what preconditions exist (e.g., tests previously flagged as near-duplicates).

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