Mark a job as applied or ignored

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a persistent side effect ('Marked roles stop appearing in future digests') and a batching behavior ('Accepts several URLs at once'). It does not mention reversibility or overwrite behavior, but it is transparent about the main outcome.

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?

Three tight sentences, each contributing: the action, the behavioral consequence, and the multi-URL capability. There is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 simple schema and no output schema, the description covers the action, the enum semantics, the key side effect, and the batching behavior. It is nearly complete for correct invocation; a return-value description would be nice but is not essential here.

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 67%, so the schema already documents urls and note. The description adds meaning to the mark enum by equating the values with 'applied ... or dismissed' and reinforces urls as a multi-item input, but it does not substantially clarify the note parameter beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('a role' / 'job'), and names the two possible outcomes: applied or ignored. It also distinguishes the tool by explaining that marked roles stop appearing in future digests, which separates it from siblings like get-marked-jobs and unmark-job.

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 gives clear usage context: use it when you have applied to or dismissed a role, and the consequence is that the role leaves the digest. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the situation is unambiguous enough for an agent to know when to call it.

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