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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain the state change and the todo-list effect, and it mentions the need for api_key. However, it does not say whether the action is reversible or whether the card remains visible elsewhere, and '需要 api_key' conflicts with the schema where api_key is not required.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by usage context and id sourcing. It contains no filler, though it could be slightly better organized with clearer separation between 'when to use' and 'how to use'.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, when to use it, why it matters, where the id comes from, and an auth hint. The api_key inconsistency and lack of return-value information are minor gaps rather than fatal ones.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful guidance on where to obtain the card id, but it also introduces ambiguity by stating api_key is required when the schema lists only id as required.

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 states the action: mark one of your own relay cards as done, with an observable effect (it will no longer appear in the todo list). It also gives the concrete condition for use: when you no longer plan to continue or comment on a work.

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 explicitly says when to call the tool and why: when you have stopped continuing/commenting, to keep the card list manageable and avoid budget-consuming maintenance. It also tells the agent where to get the card id. It does not name specific alternatives, but the usage context is clear.

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