Complete follow-up

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the critical two-step behavior: the first call writes nothing and only returns a preview plus token. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious side-effect behavior an agent must know, and it is stated explicitly.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the confirm-token protocol is front-loaded with the key constraint ('nothing is written') emphasized. Every clause carries actionable information.

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?

With no output schema, the description still describes what the first call returns (a preview and a confirm_token) and what the second call does, which is the essential return/confirm information for this workflow. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

confirm_token already carries a schema description, and the tool description reinforces its role ('no confirm_token' yields a preview; pass the token with identical arguments to apply). follow_up_id is left to its pattern/name, but its meaning is self-evident for this resource.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Mark a follow-up as done'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like add_follow_up, list_follow_ups, and log_activity. An agent knows exactly what state change this tool produces.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance and a precise call sequence: first call without confirm_token to preview, then call again with identical arguments plus the token after user approval. It does not name alternative tools for adjacent tasks, but the operational protocol is unambiguous.

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