mark_reviewed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does well by stating concrete side effects: 'Resets its review clock, applies a confidence boost, and increments awareness.' However, it omits details like reversibility, rate limits, or return values, which are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 sentence with three meaningful clauses, front-loaded with the primary action. It is concise and free of redundant information; every phrase adds value, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the low complexity (two simple parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the core purpose and side effects. It lacks usage guidance, but that is a separate dimension. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role and invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema already covers both parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond referencing 'by id,' so it neither detracts nor enhances what the schema provides. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's specific action: 'Mark a concept (by id) as reviewed right now.' It uses a strong verb ('mark'), identifies the resource ('concept'), and lists additional effects (resets review clock, confidence boost, awareness), which distinguishes it from siblings like recall_topic or log_topic.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as recall_topic or log_quiz_result. The only implied usage is from the verb 'mark,' but no exclusions or recommended contexts are provided, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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