mark_self_owned

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a meaningful downstream behavior—only self-owned products are picked up by the smart-follow batch processing—but says nothing about idempotency, permissions, or what happens to the existing flag on repeated calls.

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 core behavior and downstream effect are front-loaded, followed by example utterances that aid matching, then the parameter note. The examples add length but each reinforces a distinct invocation scenario rather than restating the same point.

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. The description covers the action, the toggle semantics, and the business consequence, leaving only permission/idempotency details unstated for a simple mutation.

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 does so for the non-obvious boolean by stating that is_self_owned defaults to true and that false means unmarking. monitor_id is only named, but its semantics are self-evident from the tool purpose.

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 and resource (mark/unmark a monitored item as self-owned) plus the functional consequence: only self-owned items enter the smart-follow batch. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like update_monitor_status or add_monitor.

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?

Provides concrete user phrasings that indicate when to invoke it ("this product is mine, mark it self-owned", "cancel the self-owned flag"), which gives a clear usage context. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use condition.

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