plugin_mark_reviewed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the token requirement and user-approval guardrails, but does not explicitly characterize the mutation nature (write vs read), reversibility, or idempotency of the operation.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: sentence 1 states purpose, sentence 2 states the technical prerequisite, and sentence 3 states the business-logic guardrail. Information is perfectly front-loaded.

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 complex security workflow and lack of annotations, the description adequately covers the critical prerequisites and sibling relationships. It appropriately omits return value documentation since no output schema exists.

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?

While the schema has 100% description coverage (baseline 3), the description adds valuable workflow context by linking the reviewToken parameter to plugin_inspect and framing the permission parameter within the security assessment workflow.

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 specific action ('Mark a plugin as reviewed and set its permission') using a concrete verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes this final approval step from sibling tools like plugin_inspect (which generates the token) and plugin_analyze_site.

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?

Excellent workflow guidance: explicitly names the prerequisite sibling tool ('Requires a valid review token from plugin_inspect') and states the exact condition for invocation ('Only call this after the user has reviewed and approved your security assessment').

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