feedbin_star_entries

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 the two things that matter most: this mutates Feedbin state and caps at 1000 ids. It stops short of idempotency (does re-starring an already-starred entry error or no-op?), auth requirements, or what the call returns, which leaves real 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 sentences, mutation warning and size cap front-loaded, zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what it does and its limit. It omits the return value (starred ids? confirmation?) and idempotency/side-effect semantics that an agent batching 1000 ids would want.

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%, so the description must compensate. 'Max 1000 ids' usefully constrains the entry_ids array size and 'Star entry ids' clarifies the element meaning, but it does not say where valid ids come from (e.g. feedbin_list_entries) or that they are Feedbin entry identifiers rather than feed 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 ('Star entry ids') and names the payload type, which is enough to distinguish it from feedbin_unstar_entries and feedbin_list_starred. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 guidance on when to use this versus feedbin_list_starred, feedbin_unstar_entries, or the read/unread equivalents. The agent must infer usage from the verb alone, and nothing is said about preconditions such as the ids needing to exist.

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