mark_trail

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, and the description consistently describes a write operation. It adds context about the TRAIL log but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as append-only semantics, duplicate-entry behavior, or whether any constraints apply. With annotations present, this is acceptable but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the core action and target, and the second clarifies the intended use. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is a simple log writer, and the description plus schema and annotations cover the main aspects: what it does, when to use it, and what parameters are needed. It could additionally mention the return value or that entries are retrievable via get_trail, but the absence is not a critical gap for this low-complexity 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all six parameters, including the required content_id, action, and requester. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Write') and identifies a distinct resource ('TRAIL content log'), and it differentiates from sibling read tools like get_trail and get_trail_stats by clearly indicating this is a write operation. The scope ('record content actions') further clarifies what kind of entries are written.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Use to explicitly record content actions.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the stated purpose is sufficient context for selecting it over the read-focused siblings.

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