mission_mark

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: failed REQUIRES reason, reason is refused on other statuses, and the reply format is the status block. It omits idempotency/re-marking behavior and error handling, but the mutation constraints are unusually well disclosed.

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 clause largely earns its place (status semantics, reason rule, skipped definition). It is on the long side and the 'asserts two contradictory things' clause is rhetorically verbose, but nothing is truly redundant.

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?

An output schema exists and the description notes the reply is the status block, so return values needn't be expanded. Coverage of status semantics, reason validity, and sibling routing is strong; only item_id mechanics and re-marking/error behavior are left uncovered.

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%, so the description must compensate. It fully defines the status enum (passed/failed/skipped) and the conditional requirement on reason, including the rationale. item_id is left to inference from 'checklist item,' but the two non-obvious parameters are well covered.

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+resource ('Mark a checklist item yourself') and immediately scopes it to acceptance criteria only the agent can check. Explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling execute_plan, so an agent can select between them without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: runs mark their own items via execute_plan with mission_item_id, so use this 'when there was nothing to execute or when the executor's verdict was not the point.' It also defines when each status applies, including what skipped means and when it is not a defect.

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