mark_trace

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

The description adds a useful semantic caveat: the marker is a timing anchor and not evidence of app-side cause and effect. With annotations already declaring non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, and destructive behavior, the description does not need to restate safety hints, but it also does not explain the practical mutation or duplication implications.

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 two compact sentences, front-loads the action, and immediately qualifies the marker's meaning. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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 trace-marker tool with annotations and no output schema, the description explains purpose and an important caveat. It remains incomplete around when to choose it over sibling trace tools and what the optional project parameter is for.

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 only 33%, and the description helps by indicating that the label is caller-provided and that the trace must be active. It does not explain the optional analysis_project_id or add constraints beyond the schema for trace_id and label.

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 ('Record') and resource ('caller-labelled marker in an active trace'), so the core action is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from trace-related siblings such as get_trace_events, stop_trace, or inspect_trace.

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 phrase 'in an active trace' implies the tool should be used during an ongoing trace, which gives some usage context. However, it names no alternatives and does not explicitly say when to use this versus start_trace, stop_trace, or get_trace_events.

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