recaptcha.assessment.annotateAnnotate reCAPTCHA assessments as LEGITIMATE or FRAUDULENT to improve model accuracy; guarded confirmation ensures safe writes.
Annotate an assessment LEGITIMATE/FRAUDULENT to improve the model (guarded).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | ||
| annotation | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| assessment_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It hints at side effects by saying 'to improve the model' and labels the operation 'guarded,' but never explains what guarded means, whether annotation is reversible, what permissions are needed, or why a confirm parameter exists.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted preamble. Its only weakness is that the parenthetical 'guarded' adds ambiguity rather than useful structure.
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 guarded mutation tool with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, the description is materially incomplete. It does not clarify the guard mechanism, confirm semantics, effects on the model, or required identifiers, even though an output schema exists and need not be described.
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 four undocumented parameters. It adds valuable meaning for the annotation parameter by naming LEGITIMATE/FRAUDULENT, but it does not explain project_id, assessment_id, or confirm at all.
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 gives a specific verb (annotate) and resource (assessment), plus the allowed labels LEGITIMATE/FRAUDULENT and the model-improvement intent. It is clear enough to distinguish from recaptcha.assessment.create, though it does not explicitly contrast with that sibling and leaves 'guarded' unexplained.
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 says what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus recaptcha.assessment.create or other recaptcha tools. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions for choosing this annotation action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.