mark_transaction_reviewed

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the core effect (sets needsReview = false) but omits side effects, error behavior, partial success handling for multiple IDs, or whether the operation is idempotent. This is similar to the 'MID' example where mutation tools without annotations received a low score due to missing contextual details.

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 sentence, directly stating the action and effect with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it immediately clear and scannable.

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 simple mutation tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description and schema provide enough to invoke the tool. However, it lacks return value expectations, error handling, and confirmation of whether both parameters can be used together, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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% with clear descriptions for each parameter ('Single transaction ID' and 'Multiple IDs'). The tool description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only implying that one can pass either a single ID or multiple IDs. It does not clarify exclusivity or behavior when both are provided, but the schema already covers the basics.

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 ('Mark') and clearly identifies the resource ('transactions') and the exact state change ('needsReview = false'). It effectively communicates the action and scope ('one or more'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_transaction or bulk_update_transactions that could also modify this field.

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 description implies usage: it's for clearing the needsReview flag, likely after using get_transactions_needing_review. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus update_transaction or bulk_update_transactions, nor does it mention any prerequisites or alternatives.

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