Mark course content as reviewed

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false), is idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds the critical context about requiring BLACKBOARD_MCP_ALLOW_WRITES=1 and that the server is read-only by default, which is valuable beyond the annotations. It also mentions it corresponds to a UI button. However, it doesn't describe what happens on success or failure, but with idempotentHint=true Agenda, some of that is covered.

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 two sentences, with the purpose and key constraint front-loaded. It's efficient and to the point, with no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value: one for the action, one for the enabling requirement.

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?

Given the tool is a simple mutation with two required parameters and full schema coverage, the description covers the purpose and the key write-enabling condition. There's no output schema, so return values aren't specified, but for a mutation tool that's not critical. It doesn't mention error handling or common failure cases, but given the simplicity and idempotency, it's adequate. A 3 is fair—it's complete enough, but could have hinted at the typical failure when writes are disabled.

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?

Since schema coverage is 100%, the schema already documents all three parameters (courseId, contentId, reviewed) with descriptions. The description doesn't add extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, but the parameter descriptions are self-explanatory (e.g., 'Must be a reviewable item' in contentId). Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool marks a reviewable content item as reviewed, explicitly linking it to the 'Mark Reviewed' button in Ultra. This distinguishes it from other content-related tools that list or get content, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from. The verb 'marks' and resource 'reviewable content item' are specific.

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 clear context: it's for reviewable items, requires writes to be enabled, and notes the server is read-only by default. This implies when to use it (when you need to mark content as reviewed) and when not to (when writes are disabled). It doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools, but the constraint is clear. It could have named a sibling for un-reviewing, but the 'reviewed' parameter handles that.

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