Mark Started

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Mark cards as started' implies a mutation (state change), but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if cards are already started, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity, earning its place by clearly stating the core action.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete behavioral disclosure, the description is inadequate. It should explain more about the operation's effects, error handling, or return values to be complete enough for safe agent use.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'card_ids' documented as 'Full 36-char UUIDs'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no context on card selection or constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Mark cards as started' clearly states the verb ('mark') and resource ('cards') with the specific state change ('as started'). It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'mark_done' by specifying the opposite state, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all other card-related tools like 'archive_card' or 'update_cards'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., cards must exist, be in a specific state), exclusions (e.g., not for archived cards), or comparisons to siblings like 'update_cards' or 'mark_done' for state transitions.

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