mark_done

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that all in-progress checkpoints are affected and that they become 'done', but it does not mention whether the action is reversible, whether permissions are required, or what happens if there are no in-progress checkpoints.

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 a single sentence with no filler. The action, scope, and target are all front-loaded and every word 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?

Given the low complexity of one required parameter and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential call information. Missing details like no-op behavior or reversibility are minor for this simple bulk state-change tool.

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 only repeats the parameter name 'work_id' without explaining what a work_id represents, how to obtain it, or any format constraints. The meaning is largely inferred from the tool's 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?

The description uses a specific verb, 'Mark', and names the exact resource: 'all in-progress checkpoints for work_id'. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_checkpoints and load_checkpoint by stating the state transition it performs.

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 intended use is implied: call this when in-progress checkpoints should be marked done. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it compares to sibling tools like save_checkpoint or check_usage.

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