mark_reviewed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does deliver the key behavioral fact: the call mutates scheduling state, and the engine uses the grade to compute the next review date. It does not say whether regrading overwrites a prior result, whether the item must still be due, or what the response contains.

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?

One tight sentence: action and target first, grade vocabulary in a compact inline list, consequence last. Nothing is redundant and nothing is padded.

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 two-parameter grading tool, the description covers the whole loop: due item from `today` → grade → rescheduling by the engine. The main gap is return behavior — with no output schema, an agent is not told whether the next review date comes back in the response.

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 50%: `key` is documented in the schema as 'the key returned by today', and `grade` is an enum with no per-value description. The description partly compensates by glossing `again` as '又错了' and stating that the grade drives the next review date, but `hard`/`good`/`easy` remain unglossed.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: records the redo grade of a *due* wrong-answer item, and names the four accepted grades. The 'due' qualifier plus the schema note tying `key` to `today`'s output makes the relationship with the `today` sibling inferable, though it is not stated outright.

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?

Usage is only implied: it should be called after redoing an item that `today` surfaced. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. what happens if the key is not due, or whether it can be re-called to overwrite a grade), and no sibling is named as an alternative.

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