feedbin_mark_unread

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: it mutates Feedbin state and accepts a maximum of 1000 ids. It does not say whether the operation is idempotent for already-unread entries, whether it requires auth, or what the response contains, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the action and followed by the mutation warning and the batch limit. No wasted words, though the fragmentary style omits connectives that would make the limit read as a hard constraint.

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, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description covers the essentials (what changes, the size limit) but omits idempotency, return behavior, and error conditions such as invalid ids.

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 required parameter, so the description must compensate. It confirms entry_ids are entry identifiers and adds a batch cap of 1000 ids, but it does not say where ids come from (e.g., feedbin_list_entries) or that they are integers.

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 unread'), so the agent knows exactly what it does. It is clearly the inverse of the sibling feedbin_mark_read, but it never names that sibling or any other, so it earns a 4 rather than 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 on when to use this instead of feedbin_mark_read or the recently-read tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the tool name.

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