cmmn-mark_sentry_satisfied

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

Provides basic transparency: sets satisfied=true and timestamp. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on side effects, reversibility, or triggers. Adequate but minimal.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with action. No unnecessary words; 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 tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. But for a CMMN mutation tool, more context (e.g., effect on sentry evaluation) would improve completeness.

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% and the description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Sentry ID (@rid format)'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('marks sentry satisfied') and the effect (sets flag and timestamp). It distinguishes from sibling 'cmmn-mark_sentry_part_satisfied' by connotation, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cmmn-reset_sentry' or 'cmmn-evaluate_sentry'. The agent must infer context from name alone.

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