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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the behavioral effect (the failure stops blocking once marked), but says nothing about reversibility, whether the record is deleted or just flagged, or any permission/auth requirements for this mutation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and the clarifying parenthetical earning its place; no redundancy or 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 low-complexity one-parameter state-change tool with an output schema (so return values need not be explained) and full param coverage, the description is nearly complete. It could add a note on reversibility or required permissions, but nothing essential is 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 coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is fully documented (including its source: wyrm_failure_list). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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States a specific verb+resource (mark a recorded failure resolved/superseded) and the consequence ('no longer blocks'), which cleanly separates it from wyrm_failure_record/check/list. It stops short of explicitly naming its sibling tools, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

Provides a clear semantic condition for use — the underlying issue is fixed or the approach now works — which tells the agent when resolving is warranted. It does not name alternatives (e.g. leaving via wyrm_failure_record or re-recording) or state when-not to use, so it falls short of a full 5.

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