answer_prayer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core action (marking as answered and recording notes) but omits behavioral details like whether the action is reversible, required permissions, or what happens to the previous status. This is similar to the update_drive example, which scored 2. The description adds minimal value beyond the obvious action.

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, concise and front-loaded with the primary action. There is no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool's simplicity (2 fully documented parameters, no output schema), the description provides the essential purpose but lacks behavior context such as return value, side effects, or permissions. Since annotations are absent and no output schema exists, the description is minimally sufficient but not complete for a mutation tool. It earns a 3, which is fair for a straightforward tool with clear schema coverage.

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%, so the schema already fully explains both parameters. The description mentions 'notas de agradecimento/resposta' which aligns with answer_notes but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description doesn't compensate for any gaps.

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 ('Marca' - marks) and resource ('pedido de oração' - prayer request), clearly stating it marks a prayer as answered and records notes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_prayer_request and list_prayers, making the purpose unmistakable.

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: use when you need to mark a prayer request as answered. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, though sibling tools provide context. It doesn't state prerequisites or conditions, so it's adequate but not explicitly instructive.

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