feedbin_delete_updated_entries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does correctly flag that the call mutates Feedbin state, which is the most important disclosure, but it says nothing about permissions, whether the operation is irreversible, what 'clearing' actually destroys versus merely acknowledges, or what happens to ids that don't exist.

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 terse sentences with nothing wasted and the operation front-loaded. The length is appropriate, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than efficiency.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves key questions open: whether the call returns anything, whether the clear is idempotent, and what the practical effect on the user's Feedbin account is. It is too thin for an unannotated write operation.

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% for the single entry_ids parameter, so the description must compensate. 'Clear updated-entry ids' does hint that the values are entry ids drawn from the updated-entries listing, but it gives no format, cardinality, or bounds beyond the array-of-integers schema itself.

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 verb 'clear' plus resource 'updated-entry ids' identifies the operation, and the second sentence confirms it is a mutation. But alongside a sibling named feedbin_list_updated_entries, the description never states the relationship (e.g. that it clears ids consumed from that list), and 'clear' is ambiguous between deleting entries and clearing a tracking marker.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of the list_updated_entries sibling, and no precondition stated. The agent must infer that this is the follow-up step after reading the updated entries list.

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