mark_mece

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the validation action but does not cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only or mutative operation, permission requirements, side effects, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely updates validation status.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by verification details. Every sentence earns its place by adding value, with no redundant or unnecessary information, making it highly efficient.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters and likely mutative behavior. It does not explain what happens after validation (e.g., status updates, return values, or error cases), leaving gaps in understanding the tool's full context and effects.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (tileId, isMECE, coverageNotes). The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'isMECE' relates to the verification process or the format of 'coverageNotes'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 action ('Mark a split as validated for MECE properties') and the resource ('split'), with specific criteria for validation ('Verify that the children completely cover the parent space with no overlaps'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling validation tools like 'validate_split_quality', which could be a similar validation function.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'validate_split_quality' or other sibling tools. It lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the purpose alone.

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