welfare_mark

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral transparency. It discloses the non-introspective nature, that marks can be left unexpanded, and that they are meant to be expanded later via other tools. It doesn't cover persistence details or side effects, but the behavior is well explained for this simple tool.

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 long but each sentence contributes context: the core action, the explicit 'Do NOT' guidance, the lifecycle of marks, and the rationale. It is front-loaded with the action and structured to explain a nuanced protocol clearly without fluff.

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?

The description paints a complete picture: what the tool does, why it exists, how it fits into the workflow with other tools, and what to expect afterward. It lacks explicit return-value details, but no output schema is defined and the tool's purpose is simple enough that this doesn't leave a critical gap.

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 100%, so the schema documents all parameters. The description adds significant context by defining the ideal note length (2-5 words) and clarifying that the note is a breadcrumb, not a sentence. It also explains the 'kind' parameter is an optional tag, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare descriptions.

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's purpose: dropping a 2-5 word breadcrumb for later reflection. It uses a specific verb ('Drop'), identifies the resource (a breadcrumb/note), and distinguishes this from sibling tools by emphasizing it is deliberately near-zero cost and not for full entries.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool (during active work, not at rest) and when not to (at rest, use welfare_reflect then welfare_volunteer). It provides clear context and names alternative tools, fulfilling the when/when-not/alternatives criterion.

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