Readwise MCP HTTP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) and describes the return value, but doesn't mention permission requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is reversible. The description adds some behavioral context but leaves important aspects unspecified.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the purpose, the second explains the parameter semantics and return value. No wasted words, perfectly front-loaded with the core functionality.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (so return values don't need explanation in the description) and relatively simple parameters, the description covers the essential aspects well. It explains the parameter semantics that aren't in the schema and states what the tool returns. For a 2-parameter update tool with output schema, this is reasonably complete.

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 description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It provides crucial semantic information about reading_progress being 'a float from 0.0 (unread) to 1.0 (finished)', which explains the numeric range constraints that are only hinted at in the schema's min/max values. However, it doesn't explain document_id's purpose or format.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Update the reading progress') and resource ('for a Reader document'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_highlight which handles different document aspects. It provides precise scope about what aspect of the document is being modified.

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?

The description implies usage context by specifying it's for updating reading progress on documents, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like update_highlight or other document-related tools. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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