setlist_mark_attended

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

Going beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses meaningful behaviors: authentication via session cookie, dry-run returning a preview and making NO change without confirm: true, verification by re-reading the attended list after confirming, and the API-term attribution rule (followable link, no nofollow) with a fallback URL. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence carries distinct, necessary information: auth, idempotency, confirm/dry-run semantics, and attribution obligations. The density is justified for a mutation tool with this many constraints; there is no redundancy or 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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: auth requirement, dry-run vs. confirm behavior, verification step, and how to handle the url in results. The only minor gap is that the full result shape beyond url is not described, which an agent might need for robust success/failure checks.

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 confirm and setlistId with adequate descriptions. The tool description marginally reinforces confirm as a safety switch and hints that setlistId originates from setlist_search_setlists / resolve_concerts, but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies for high coverage.

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 and resource: 'Record on YOUR setlist.fm account that you attended a show — the site's "I was there" marker — by setlist ID.' It clearly scopes the action to the user's own account and keys it by setlist ID, which distinguishes it from read-only siblings like setlist_get_setlist and from the reverse operation setlist_unmark_attended.

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 gives clear usage context: it is the tool for marking attendance on the user's account, requires the SETLIST_SESSION_COOKIE as an explicit prerequisite, and explains the confirm-gated dry-run flow. It stops short of a 5 because it never explicitly names alternatives (e.g., 'to remove the marker, use setlist_unmark_attended'), but the guidance is unambiguous and actionable.

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