update_library_itemAuthenticated smry product action. Move, tag, mark read, or update reading progress for an item in the user's library.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| tags | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| mark_read | No | ||
| read_progress | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the action requires authentication and enumerates the mutating behaviors (move, tag, mark read, update progress). It aligns with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, with no contradiction.
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 short and front-loads the auth context, then lists operations in one efficient second sentence. The generic 'Authenticated smry product action' prefix carries minor waste but does not obstruct.
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 five-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description gives enough high-level context to attempt a call, but it omits alternative routing, return behavior, and clarifications around read_progress/tags. The schema and annotations fill some gaps, not all.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the sentence maps actions to the main parameters: tags, status/move, mark_read, and read_progress. However, it does not explain the required id, the meaning of null read_progress, or tag replacement semantics, leaving meaningful gaps.
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 clear resource ('item in the user's library') and enumerates concrete operations: move, tag, mark read, or update reading progress. This distinguishes it from siblings like save_article, but it does not explicitly name a sibling or exclusion, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
No guidance is given on when to call this tool instead of save_article or get_article. 'Authenticated' is the only prerequisite hinted at, and there is no mention of exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a largely distinct job: discovery (search_feeds, search_web), content retrieval/search within URLs (get_article, search_article), and library/feed management (save_article, follow_feeds, update_library_item, create_monitor). The only mild overlap is get_article vs open_web_pages, both of which extract content from public URLs, but their different output styles and intended use cases keep them mostly separate.
All nine tool names follow a consistent imperative verb + object pattern in snake_case: create_monitor, follow_feeds, get_article, open_web_pages, save_article, search_article, search_feeds, search_web, update_library_item. There are no mixed conventions, vague verbs, or surprising abbreviations.
Nine tools is well-scoped for a reading and summarization product: three search/discovery tools, three content-retrieval tools, and three library/feed management tools. Each tool contributes a distinct workflow step and the set avoids bloat.
The set covers discovery, fetching and searching content, saving to a library, following feeds, monitoring page changes, and updating library items. However, there are no removal operations (unfollow feed, delete monitor, delete library item) and no direct way to list or read the user's saved library or followed sources, creating noticeable lifecycle gaps.