Request Mark

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses the side effect that a previously playing request is marked done, explains the stream-server dependency for on_screen while clarifying the mark still counts, and notes that UTC timestamps are retained. It does not discuss permissions, validation failures, or error behavior, so it falls short of exhaustive disclosure.

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 front-loaded with the core action and every clause adds operational information about states, notes, or stream display. It is dense and semicolon-heavy rather than cleanly structured, but it does not waste sentences on filler.

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 that an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, and the description appropriately focuses on mutation behavior and stream-display side effects. It is nearly complete for a no-annotation mutation tool, with only permissions or error paths left unstated.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters, and it does: it defines the meaningful status values and transitions, explains 'note' as MC-facing context, and clarifies 'on_screen' including its stream-server caveat. 'id' is left implicit, but its meaning is self-evident from the tool purpose.

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 gives a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('a request along') and enumerates the target states, so the operation is easy to identify. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby request tools such as request_next or request_vote, which keeps it from a 5.

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 state semantics imply when each status should be used, e.g. 'playing' means the DJ started it and replacing a playing request marks the old one done. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives like request_next, request_add, or request_list beyond the passing mention that request_list shows timestamps.

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