Mark Entry Read

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write. The description adds genuine context beyond them: 'Only affects your unread counts' tells the agent the blast radius is limited to the caller's read state and does not alter entry content or notify anyone. It stops short of describing the response or what happens when the entry is already read.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the scoping constraint ('only affects your unread counts') is front-loaded right after the action statement.

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 three-parameter state mutation with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the definition is nearly sufficient. It lacks only edge-case behavior (already-read entries, error when the entry is not accessible), which are minor for this tool class.

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?

All three parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including where to obtain each ID from sibling list tools. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pair ('Mark one discussion entry as read') and the word 'one' scopes it against topic-level and bulk siblings such as mark_topic_read and mark_all_entries_read. It does not name those siblings, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 intent is implied by the verb - an agent would use this to clear unread state on a single entry - but there is no statement of when to prefer it over mark_topic_read, mark_all_entries_read, or mark_submission_read, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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