mark_history_item_failed

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden and does disclose meaningful side effects: the release is blocklisted and a replacement search is triggered. This goes beyond the bare 'mark as failed' action. It does not mention irreversibility, permissions, or error conditions, but the key behavioral impact is clearly surfaced.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the action, the second states the consequence. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description provides the essential behavioral context: what happens when the action succeeds. It does not describe the response format, but this is not critical for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The main side effects are already covered.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' with the description 'History record id'. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Mark'), a clear resource ('a grabbed history item'), and the resulting behavior ('blocklists the release and searches for a replacement'). This clearly distinguishes it from history read tools like get_history and queue removal tools like remove_queue_item.

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 purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer this is for failing a grabbed history item and triggering a replacement search, but the description provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives such as removing the queue item or directly manipulating the blocklist. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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