mark_year_in_review_viewed

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false. The description usefully adds that the operation is mutating, gated behind FLIGHTY_ALLOW_WRITES, and not live-validated — real value beyond the annotations. It stops short of saying what state changes, whether repeat calls are harmless, or what the response contains (though an output schema exists).

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 text is short and front-loads the endpoint, but 'Not live-validated' and 'Mutation behavior has not been live-tested' are redundant restatements of the same caveat. The parameter guidance is squeezed into one run-on sentence rather than structured.

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?

With an output schema and annotations present, the missing piece is the semantic core: what the mutation does, what payload fields the external docs require, and what confirm_destructive means here. Pointing to docs/api.md off-tool leaves an agent unable to construct a correct call.

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 0% for four parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails. It only says payload is 'the JSON object documented in docs/api.md' (an external pointer) and that there are no path parameters; query and confirm_destructive are never explained, and the confirm_destructive flag on a claimed non-destructive call is left ambiguous.

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 mostly restates the tool name plus the raw HTTP endpoint (POST /v1/user/settings/viewedYearInReview) without explaining what marking the year-in-review as viewed actually accomplishes or affects. An agent gains no more understanding than it would from the name alone, and nothing distinguishes it from the many other user-settings mutation siblings.

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 only guidance is a precondition (FLIGHTY_ALLOW_WRITES=true), which is an environment gate rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no indication of when an agent should call this versus other account/settings tools, nor any exclusion criteria.

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