feedbin_mark_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: this mutates Feedbin state and caps input at 1000 ids. It omits idempotency, error behavior for unknown ids, and whether the change is reversible, so it only partially compensates for the missing annotations.

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 terse sentences, zero waste, with the core action stated first and the mutation warning and limit following. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the mutation risk, and the input cap—enough to call it correctly. Missing idempotency and unknown-id handling, a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 0% and the only parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It correctly identifies the parameter as entry ids and adds the 1000-id limit, but says nothing about id format, validity, or behavior for unknown ids.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Mark entry ids as read'), which an agent can distinguish from feedbin_mark_unread by polarity of the name and description. It does not explicitly name the sibling, so differentiation relies on inference.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation name; the description never says when to prefer this over feedbin_mark_unread or feedbin_add_recently_read, nor any preconditions such as ids needing to exist. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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