pup_mark_defaults_reviewed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden. It discloses that confirmation is required and that the operation changes state by clearing the needs-review prompt. It does not detail what the preview looks like or whether the action is reversible, but the core behavior is exposed.

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, action first, with no filler. The state-change effect and the confirmation requirement each earn their place.

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?

The description plus fully described schema provide enough for an agent to call the tool: purpose, effect, required confirmation, and parameter source. It lacks explicit mention of the preview behavior without confirm, but that is already in the schema's confirm parameter description.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds a small amount by explaining that confirm must be true and by relating the action to default plans, but it does not expand on the 'reviewed' parameter's semantics beyond the schema's 'Defaults to true'.

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 ('Mark') and a specific resource ('a student's default plans'), and names the outcome ('clearing the school's 'needs review' prompt'). This clearly separates it from siblings like pup_set_default_plans, which set plan content rather than review status.

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?

It states the context for use: when a student's default plans need to be flagged as reviewed and the school's needs-review prompt cleared. It also gives a prerequisite (confirm: true), but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over sibling tools such as pup_set_default_plans.

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