reddit_mark_engaged

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses idempotent upsert behavior and the effect of stopping re-surfacing. It doesn't detail requirements or rate limits, but for a simple record-keeping tool, this is sufficient.

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 concise with a clear purpose statement and well-structured argument explanations. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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 tool is simple, and the description covers purpose, idempotency, all parameters, and provides usage context. With an output schema existing, the description is complete for correct invocation.

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%, but the description thoroughly explains all three parameters: post_id (required, with format example), comment_url (optional, for audit trail), and note (optional, with examples). This adds high value beyond the schema.

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 tool records that a Reddit candidate was engaged to stop re-surfacing. It uses specific verbs and resource, and distinguishes from the sibling `reddit_engagement_candidates` by being the complementary action after a comment is posted.

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 'call it once a comment is actually posted' and provides example notes for skipped or posted actions, giving clear context. It does not explicitly list when not to use or compare directly with alternatives, but the usage is well implied.

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