mangome_effect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuinely non-obvious constraint about retry safety on unknown outcomes, which is valuable, but it says nothing about mutation/idempotency semantics per operation, what state is written, or what is destroyed.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and zero filler. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness leaves the enum operations unexplained.

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 described, but for a six-operation state-machine tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage the description is far too thin. The operation-specific semantics and payload contract are the most important missing pieces.

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%, so both the operation enum and the opaque "payload" object are undocumented anywhere. The description adds no per-operation meaning (e.g., what payload RECORD_INTENT needs versus MARK_DISPATCHED), leaving the agent unable to construct a valid call for five of six operations.

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?

It gives a verb+resource ("Record/reconcile external effects") but "external effects" is domain jargon, and the six-operation surface (RECORD_INTENT, MARK_DISPATCHED, RECORD_OBSERVATION, RECONCILE, STATUS, CLOSURE_STATUS) is never explained. The STATUS/CLOSURE_STATUS ops also blur the boundary with the mangome_status sibling, so an agent cannot cleanly tell this apart from neighbors.

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?

"Unknown outcomes must not be blindly retried" is a caution, not guidance on when to invoke this tool versus mangome_observe, mangome_verify, or mangome_status. No alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion conditions are stated.

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