Set Document Priority

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the primary safety profile. The description adds semantic context for two enum values but does not describe behavior such as whether the existing priority is overwritten or any side effects. With annotations handling the key behavioral traits, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 concise: two short sentences that state the purpose and then clarify the two most ambiguous enum values. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple setter with two parameters and an existing output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's action and clarifies important terms. It could mention that setting priority replaces the existing value, but given the low complexity and that the output schema is available, the description is reasonably complete.

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 It defines 'authoritative' and 'outdated' but leaves 'normal', 'draft', and doc_id undocumented. This partial compensation is insufficient for fully understanding all parameters, though the undefined values are somewhat self-explanatory.

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 identifies the resource as 'a document's priority/status', which clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like tagging or categorization. It lists the four possible values, making the scope explicit. The slight ambiguity of 'priority/status' is resolved by the enumerated values.

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 implies usage for setting document priority/status and clarifies the meaning of 'authoritative' and 'outdated', which helps decide when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or 'use instead' references.

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