mark_processed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states the action and does not disclose side effects, idempotency, reversibility, or prerequisites (other than the 'written to Obsidian' context). For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 concise and front-loaded, with a one-sentence purpose followed by a clear args list. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of structured data.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool, the description covers the essential purpose and args, and an output schema exists to handle return values. However, it lacks context about side effects, idempotency, or what 'processed' means in the system, which would be expected given no annotations.

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 description adds meaningful parameter semantics: it explains that notebook_id is 'the document UUID' and page_ids are 'Comma-separated page UUIDs', which goes beyond the schema's bare titles. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, providing crucial format and type information.

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 clearly states the action: 'Mark pages as processed after they've been written to Obsidian.' This is a specific verb+resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools that are all read/list operations. The purpose is unambiguous and contextually relevant.

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 implies when to use the tool ('after they've been written to Obsidian'), giving some contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, nor does it explain what to do if pages are already processed. It is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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