tick_protocol

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the action is a state change that can be toggled on/off, but it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., initialized user or existing protocol), idempotency, effects on stats, or 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, and includes the date format in a compact phrase. No filler or repetition of structured schema content.

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 two-parameter toggle, the core operation is captured, but there is no return/output info and no guidance on prerequisites or failure cases. It is adequate but leaves gaps in what happens after the toggle.

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 coverage is only 50%; the description repeats the date format but lets protocol_id's meaning be inferred from the word 'protocol.' It does not explain that protocol_id should reference an existing protocol, nor does it define the expected format beyond generic string.

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 and resource ('Mark a protocol as done') and adds the 'toggle off' behavior plus the date scope. This is clearly distinct from siblings like add_protocol/set_protocols (setup) and show_tracker (read-only).

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_protocol or set_protocols. The phrase 'Mark a protocol as done' implies the intended use for daily ticking, but no when-not-to-use conditions or alternative routing are given.

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