mark_recommendation_acted_on

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

Without annotations, the description clearly discloses the behavior: it marks the recommendation as acted on and triggers verification on the next run of verify_savings(). No contradictions, but could mention if the action is reversible or any permissions required.

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 concise, with a brief explanation, parameter details, and three relevant examples. No wasted words, well-structured.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what the parameter is, and how to use it, with examples.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by explaining that 'recommendation_id' comes from list_savings_recommendations() or get_savings_summary(), which goes beyond the schema's mere type definition.

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: 'Mark a savings recommendation as acted on', with the specific resource (a savings recommendation) and the follow-up action (verification by verify_savings). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dismiss_recommendation.

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 examples of when to use the tool (e.g., after resizing an EC2 instance or shutting down an RDS). It implies the context of use but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like dismiss_recommendation.

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