Mark handed-over material as processed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses persistent data mutation ('saved data is updated'), a visible user-facing side effect (the Start screen changes so users can confirm items are cleared), and a reversal path (status='pending' puts an item back). Minor gaps are permissions and error conditions, but for a state-transition tool this is strong disclosure.

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?

Two short sentences per language, each carrying distinct information: purpose, mode selection, screen side effect, and reversal. The Japanese/English duplication doubles length but serves the tool's bilingual user base and lang parameter; no sentence is filler.

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 5-parameter state-transition tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential contract: what to target, that data is mutated, that the Start screen reflects the change, and how to reverse. Main omissions are the output the caller receives (despite the lang parameter implying some response) and behavior when ids and all=true are passed together, but the schema's 100% parameter coverage reduces the burden.

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 already documents all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema by clarifying that ids and all=true are alternative selection modes, and by explaining that status='pending' triggers a reversal rather than merely setting a different state. This relational meaning is not captured in the individual parameter descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: flips handed-over intake items to 'done' in the saved data, with explicit scoping modes (ids for specific items, all=true for all pending). It is unmistakably a state-transition/write tool rather than a read tool. However, it never names siblings like check_intake, so differentiation from related intake tools is implied rather than explicit.

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?

Explains the two target-selection modes (ids vs all=true) and the reversal via status='pending', which is solid within-tool usage guidance. But it never addresses when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., check_intake for viewing items, update_engagement for engagement edits), so cross-tool routing is left to inference.

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