Flag a critical decision in a session to prioritize it in live running notes and searchable briefs, ensuring key choices remain visible for later review.
Flag a critical decision for priority priority.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | Yes | ||
| session_id | Yes | ||
| exchange_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Input schema / properties / session_idAdded value: +{
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "exchange_id",
- "label"
-]New value: +[
+ "exchange_id",
+ "label",
+ "session_id"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation or state change ('Flag'), but gives no detail about persistence, side effects, return values, or required context such as a valid session.
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 short but not well-formed; the repeated 'priority priority' and unclear wording make it under-specified rather than effectively concise. It is not front-loaded with useful, accurate information.
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?
With three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine correct usage, parameter semantics, side effects, or what constitutes a successful call.
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% and the description does not mention exchange_id, label, or session_id. It fails to explain what these parameters mean, how they relate to the milestone, or what values are valid.
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 ('Flag') and a resource ('a critical decision'), which gives a rough idea of the operation. However, the phrase 'for priority priority' is garbled and the description never clearly says it marks a milestone, so the purpose remains vague and does not differentiate it from sibling tools.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stenographer_query_history or stenographer_ingest_exchange. There are no usage conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.