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

With no annotations, the description does carry the basic behavioral contract: it mutates a visit step and returns the steps plus the next one. However, it omits important mutation details such as permissions, idempotency, error behavior for invalid keys, and what happens when reopening a step.

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 a single compact sentence pair with the action and return behavior front-loaded. The phrase 'when the worker says so' is somewhat informal but does not create significant clutter.

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?

The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain the return value in detail, and the description does mention the steps and next one. Still, for a four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, more parameter and side-effect context would be needed for full completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters, yet it only loosely maps 'step' to key and 'visit' to visit_id and lists the state values. It says nothing about the note parameter, the key format, or what visit_id identifies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: marking a guided visit step as done, skipped, or open again. It clearly indicates a mutation of visit-step state, but it does not explicitly differentiate this from close siblings such as visits_steps, visits_done, or visits_update.

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 only usage context given is the vague phrase 'when the worker says so.' It does not explain when to use this instead of visits_steps, visits_done, or visits_update, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions.

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