mark_handled

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses a write operation ('Writes the ledger'), states it does not affect Moodle, and explains the non-obvious per-revision behavior: if the file changes later, it returns to the backlog. It also gives guidance on `note`. It stops short of idempotency or error behavior, but the key side effects are explicit.

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 entire description is three sentences, each earning its place: purpose/scope, parameter semantics, and the per-revision behavioral caveat. No filler, front-loaded purpose, and markdown formatting improves scannability.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 params, 0% schema descriptions, no annotations), the description covers the essential contract: what it does, the write target, parameter formats, and a surprising behavioral rule. It doesn't address idempotency or prerequisites, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, leaving few critical gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It defines `action` as one of read, ingested, ignored, todo; explains `by` as free text with examples; and positions `note` as the place for a link. `file_ids` is only implied via 'these items,' but the first sentence ties it to the target items, which is sufficient given the bare schema.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Record that these items were dealt with.' It further narrows scope with 'Writes the ledger, not Moodle,' which distinguishes it from any Moodle-facing sibling tools. Enumeration of the `action` values adds concrete definition.

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—use this when items have been dealt with—and the per-revision caveat gives context, but it never names an alternative tool or explicit when-not-to-use condition. The 'not Moodle' line hints at an exclusion without offering a replacement tool, leaving some routing to inference.

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