mark_applied

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world write. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it is a stateful confirmation gated on user approval and unchanged values, and it must not be invoked autonomously. It does not describe side effects on dependent artifacts, but the key behavioral constraint is well covered.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core meaning and the operational constraint. Dense but every clause carries information; no 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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a 3-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves parameter usage undocumented, which is a real gap for correct invocation.

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% across three parameters (path, fields, notes), so the description carries the full burden. It hints that 'fields' correspond to approved values and references 'checklist.<rule id>', but never explains what path, fields, or notes actually accept or how they map.

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 action (marking something 'applied' in Steamworks) and pins down what the object is: a manual step keyed as 'checklist.<rule id>' from gap_report, or user-approved values. It is clear enough to separate from siblings like apply or approve_fields, though the phrasing is somewhat indirect.

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?

It gives an explicit when-not: 'Never call this on your own: only when the user says it is done.' It also states the precondition that only approved, unchanged values qualify, and points to gap_report as the source of the item.

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