mark_reviewed

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

Annotations already convey idempotency, non-destructiveness, and read-write behavior. The description adds the exact state transition to user_reviewed, which is helpful, but it does not disclose any additional side effects, error behavior, or requirements beyond the annotations.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and target, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

While the operation itself is simple and idempotent, the description omits the meaning of the sole required parameter and gives no usage context beyond the state transition. With no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, this leaves an agent guessing about how to correctly supply 'subtitle'.

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?

The only parameter, 'subtitle', has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain whether it is an ID, path, SRT content, or something else. The phrase 'translated SRT' gives a weak hint but does not compensate for the missing 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 uses a specific verb ('갱신합니다' / updates) with a clear resource ('번역 SRT의 provenance 상태') and an explicit target state ('user_reviewed'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like translate_subtitle or set_glossary.

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 after a translation has been reviewed is implied by 'user_reviewed', but the description never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites. There is no exclusion guidance for other provenance-related operations.

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