Mark Effective

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says what the tool does, not whether it overwrites an existing effectiveness value, whether the change is reversible, whether the case must already exist, or any permission requirements. For a state-changing tool, this is a significant gap.

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 with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary background. It is front-loaded with the action and target, and every word earns its place.

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: two flat parameters, one required, a default value for effective, and an output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, the agent is left uninformed about side effects, prerequisites, or when this write should be performed relative to siblings. This is a clear gap, though not crippling for such a small tool.

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 case_id and effective are already documented in the input schema. The description adds only marginal context by clarifying that the 'effective' flag applies to the case solution rather than the case itself. The schema does the heavy lifting, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('mark') and a specific resource ('case solution effectiveness'), making the core intent clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_case and search_case because no other tool claims to update effectiveness. However, 'mark whether effective' is slightly loose and does not explicitly say 'set/update the stored flag', though the title and schema resolve that ambiguity.

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 use case is implied: an agent should call this when recording whether a case solution is effective. But the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or exclusions among the many sibling tools. It is adequate only through inference from the name and verb.

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