stenographer_mark_milestone

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a write operation ('flag') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the action is reversible, requires authorization, or has side effects. The lack of detail leaves significant ambiguity.

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 sentence of 8 words, which is concise but lacks necessary detail. It front-loads the purpose, but the brevity sacrifices completeness. It could be expanded with parameter context without losing conciseness.

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 simple schema (2 required parameters, no output schema) and no annotations, the description should explain parameters and behavioral context. It fails to do so, making the tool under-defined for an agent. The description is incomplete for effective use.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention any parameters. The agent receives no help understanding 'exchange_id' or 'label', which are required but undefined. This is a critical gap for proper tool invocation.

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 action 'Flag' and the resource 'critical decision', and mentions 'tier-A priority', which gives a specific context. However, the tool name 'mark_milestone' suggests marking a point in time, not necessarily a decision, creating a slight disconnect. It distinguishes from sibling tools by implying a specific priority-level action.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or related tools. Only a brief purpose is given, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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