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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint; the description adds the meaningful caveat that the tool should only reflect human-handled work and implies reversibility via 'open again (NEW)'. It could spell out irreversibility of the DONE transition more explicitly, but adds real policy context beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded with a [write] marker and the state transition, followed by ID sourcing and the safety caveat. No wasted text.

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 3-parameter mutation with annotation-level safety coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, ID sourcing, status semantics, and usage caution. Missing only error/edge behavior (e.g., what happens if neither ID is valid), which is minor here.

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 0%, so the description must compensate: it explains that match_id is the tg_match_id from list_tg_matches and that match_uuid is an alternative key, and defines the status values DONE/NEW. It omits that one of match_id/match_uuid is effectively required (both are nullable in the schema) and the DONE default, leaving a small gap.

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 and resource ('Mark a keyword match') plus the exact state transition (DONE / NEW), which distinguishes it from read-only siblings like list_tg_matches. An agent immediately knows this mutates match status.

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?

Gives a clear operating condition — only mark matches a person (or an owner-approved reply) has dealt with — and names list_tg_matches as the source of the identifier. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative for other match operations, but the guardrail is well stated.

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