mark_current

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses side effects: appending to diary, promotions based on thresholds, and override for YouTube parsing. However, it does not mention reversibility or authentication needs, but for a simple reaction tool, this is fairly transparent.

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 no wasted words. All information is relevant and efficiently conveyed.

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 moderate complexity (5 params, 1 required) and no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, and parameter usage. It lacks mention of the return value or error handling, but these are minor omissions for a stamping action.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that artist/album/track override YouTube parsing, but does not clarify the 'note' parameter. The reaction parameter is covered by listing the enum. Overall, it adds value for 3 of 5 parameters but misses one.

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 verb 'Stamp' and the resource 'currently playing track' with a specific reaction. It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like current_track, play_album, and play_station, which are for retrieval or playback, while this performs a marking action.

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 explains when to use this tool (to react to the current track) and provides context about side effects (appending to diary, promoting album card) and parameter overrides. It lacks explicit exclusion of alternatives but still offers solid guidance.

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