workflow_mark_context_stale

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful consequence ('force re-onboarding'), but omits whether the marking is reversible, what exactly becomes invalid, whether it blocks downstream task/decision tools, and any permission requirements. It is helpful but thin for a state-mutating tool.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with the verb, resource, and consequence in immediate sequence. No filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, no-output, no-annotation tool that mutates context state, the description is adequate but leaves the key operational questions open: what gets invalidated, with what scope, and what the caller should expect afterward. A sentence on the resulting state or required follow-up would close the gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline of 4 applies. Nothing about parameter meaning is left ambiguous, though the description does not explain how 'journey' vs 'repository' scope is selected given there are no inputs.

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 states a specific verb ('Mark'), a specific resource ('journey or repository context'), and the effect ('as stale'), plus the downstream intent ('to force re-onboarding'). This clearly distinguishes it from the onboarding and freshness siblings (workflow_onboard_journey, workflow_get_freshness), though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose clause: call it when you want to force re-onboarding. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no statement of which alternative to prefer (e.g., re-running workflow_get_freshness vs. this) or what precondition makes context 'stale'.

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