mark_activity_done

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'Auto-backed up', which adds safety context but fails to describe mutation behavior, idempotency, or potential side effects. The agent cannot infer whether this is destructive or safe.

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 very brief (2 sentences) and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity. It is not verbose but leaves significant gaps.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is sorely incomplete. It does not explain what an activity is, how to find activity_id, what the 'done' flag does, or what success looks like. The agent lacks critical context.

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 explain parameters. It does not mention 'activity_id' or 'done' at all. The agent gets no added meaning beyond the schema's type and default.

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 an activity done') and includes the alternative ('or reopen it'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'list_activities_for_deal' and 'create_follow_up' by focusing on completion status.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context for reopening, or any exclusions. The description is purely operational with no decision support.

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