mark_updates_seen

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds the meaningful clarification that it 'only touches local state', i.e., it does not modify Moodle content, which is real context beyond the annotations. The tension with openWorldHint=true is minor and openWorldHint semantics are debatable, but the description does not mention return behavior.

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 short, front-loaded sentences; the purpose leads and the side-effect clarification follows. Nothing is wasted.

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 low-complexity, no-output tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers purpose, effect and locality. The only real gap is the unaddressed 'course' parameter's scoping behavior.

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% for the single optional 'course' parameter, and the description never mentions it or explains what omitting it does (all courses vs current course). The description provides no parameter-level meaning to compensate.

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 ('Record the current Moodle content as seen') and explicitly describes the effect on a named sibling ('so check_updates stops reporting it'), letting an agent separate it from check_updates and mirror_course without reading schemas.

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?

Clear context for when to call it: after reviewing content, to clear what check_updates reports. It names the dependent sibling and its effect, but offers no explicit when-not or alternative (e.g., what to do for a single course vs all).

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