tracking_error

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short. It does not disclose that this is a mutating/terminal state change, whether it is idempotent, what happens to an already-errored or completed session, or any permission requirements.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. It is appropriately sized only because it conveys almost nothing.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), this is a two-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and no parameter documentation. The description is far too thin for an agent to invoke it confidently over its many siblings.

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 both required parameters (session_id and message) are undocumented in both schema and description. The word 'session' loosely implies session_id, but the description adds no meaning for 'message' or formatting expectations, leaving the agent to guess.

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 gives a clear verb and resource ('Marque une session en erreur' = marks a session as errored), so the core action is inferable. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like tracking_update, tracking_stop, or tracking_kill, which also mutate session state, so an agent cannot tell them apart from the text alone.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for related operations such as stopping or completing a session. The agent receives no routing guidance.

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