mark_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about side effects, whether the mark is written into a capture file, whether a session must be running, or whether marks can be removed. Only the label semantics are conveyed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with an inline example and no filler. Every element earns its 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with zero annotation coverage and an unexplained second parameter, the definition is too thin for a tool that mutates a capture artifact and interlocks with capture_start/capture_stop/diff_actions.

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. The example 'brightness 50%' does clarify what the required label should contain, but the 'capture' parameter (default capture.pcapng) is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 specific verb ('Mark') and resource ('the action the user is about to perform in the vendor app') plus a concrete example label. It is more specific than a tautology, but it never explains what a 'mark' actually is or where it lands, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like diff_actions or capture_start/stop.

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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisite (e.g. an active capture), and no exclusion. The user must infer from the sibling set that this annotates a capture for later diff_actions.

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