mark_done

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful deferred side effect (future generated loops avoid the same paths), which is real behavioral context beyond the schema, but it omits reversibility, idempotency, permission requirements, and error behavior for an invalid route_id.

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?

Two compact sentences with the action front-loaded and the consequence second; nothing is wasted. The parenthetical tool references cost a little clarity but earn their place by routing the agent.

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 mutation tool with an output schema present and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral trait (persistent exclusion of completed paths). Return values need not be explained given the output schema, though permission and failure semantics are left implicit.

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. It names two of the three parameters semantically ('date', 'impressions' = notes) but leaves the required route_id unexplained and adds no format or null-handling detail beyond what the JSON schema already declares structurally.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Marque une rando comme faite') and further anchors it to the sibling ecosystem by naming generate_loop_candidates. An agent can tell this apart from annotate_route or list_routes without inspecting either schema.

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?

Implies the trigger condition (a hike you have completed) and explains the downstream consequence for loop generation, but gives no explicit when-not, no prerequisites, and does not contrast with alternatives such as annotate_route. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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