mark_owned

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the mark is stored app-side and not written to the DB, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention idempotency, permission requirements, or whether marking overwrites existing state, leaving some gaps.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys purpose and key behavior without verbosity.

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 tool with an output schema, the description provides adequate information: what the tool does, the target format, and the crucial storage detail. It does not explain how the marking affects other tools (e.g., paths_from_owned), but this is reasonably inferable given the sibling context.

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 only defines 'target' as a string with no description. The description adds crucial meaning by stating 'by name/objectid', clarifying what the string should represent. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage effectively, though it could be more explicit about format.

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 function: to mark a principal as attacker-owned. It specifies the target type (name/objectid) and distinguishes this from listing owned principals (as in sibling tools like list_owned) by noting the app-side storage.

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 implies usage—mark principals you have compromised—but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_owned or other state-modifying tools. The 'stored app-side' detail gives some context but no direct comparison or exclusions.

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