codesweep_mark

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 useful behaviors: `processed` maps to terminal/non-terminal states, `state` is validated against the lifecycle/transitions DAG, and sending both parameters is an error. However, it does not cover reversibility, permissions, idempotency, or failure behavior.

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 front-loaded with a one-line purpose and then uses a clean Args structure. It is focused and informative, though the mutual exclusivity warning is repeated in both `processed` and `state`, which is mildly redundant.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the important call decisions: target sweep, items, state selection, and validation against lifecycle/transitions. It leaves some domain specifics implicit, such as exact state vocabulary and behavior when no lifecycle DAG is declared, but is generally complete enough.

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 the description must fully compensate. It does so exceptionally: it explains `sweep_ref` formats, `items` purpose, the legacy `processed` default and semantic mapping, and the mutual exclusivity between `processed` and `state`, including the subtle case where agreeing values are still an error.

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 opens with 'Mark items by state transition,' which states a specific action and resource, and the args clarify this applies to sweeps via sweep_ref and lifecycle/transitions. It is clear but does not differentiate from sibling mark tools like mark_integrated or mark_branch_only.

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 gives detailed guidance on choosing between `processed` and `state`, but this is parameter-level guidance, not tool-level alternatives. It never says when to use this tool versus sibling marking tools, so usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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