Mark an insight actioned

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=false), the description discloses required scopes, OAuth scope, data sensitivity, that an Idempotency-Key is required, and the workspace override mechanism. This is substantial operational context not captured by the structured annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the human-readable purpose, then a compact block of operational facts (operation, scopes, idempotency, workspace). Nearly every line earns its place, though the format is a bit list-heavy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Combined with the auth, idempotency, and workspace details, the definition is nearly complete for a state-mutating action tool.

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 already 75%, so the schema documents most params; the description adds meaning by explaining that workspaceId/workspaceSlug override the environment default and that the idempotencyKey can be server-generated if omitted. That exceeds the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 and resource: record that an insight's requested action was completed. It is clearly distinguishable in intent from read-state siblings like mark_read or dismiss, though it does not name those siblings directly.

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?

"Use it after doing the work, not instead of it" gives a timing constraint and implies a when-not (as a substitute for the actual work). However, it offers no routing against the closely-related mark_read/dismiss siblings, so the alternative-selection guidance is only implied.

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