mark_intent_landed

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 clearly discloses that the tool is idempotent, never rewrites the completion record, and that providing commit SHAs is optional ('pass the commit SHAs if you know them; landing without them is fine and complete'). It also explains behavioral nuance ('the tree it cannot see is the one thing it cannot check for itself').

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 paragraph that front-loads the core action ('Record that work... is now in git'), then adds context about when and why to call it. Every sentence contributes meaningful information — no redundancy or filler.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage cues, behavioral traits, and parameter guidance comprehensively. The tool has low complexity (2 params, 1 required), and the description provides everything needed for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of the `commits` parameter in context ('if you know them. Omit if you don't — do not guess'), and emphasizes that the timestamp is the correction when commits are unknown. This added guidance justifies above baseline.

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 specific verbs ('Record', 'mark', 'landed') and clearly identifies the resource ('work an already-COMPLETED intent declared uncommitted is now in git'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like complete_intent (which marks intent completion) and post_intent (which creates a new intent) by focusing on the post-completion git state update.

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 explicitly states when to call this ('the moment you learn it') and provides clear examples ('you committed and pushed that work yourself, or you can see in the tree that the work another session left uncommitted has since landed'). It explains the consequences of not calling it ('registry keeps warning', 'keeps re-telling the same story'), which strongly implies when it should be used.

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