Mark read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond them — it does not say whether the change is reversible, whether it is persisted server-side, or what happens for invalid IDs.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than true concision.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the operation itself is simple (one required ID parameter). Still, for a state-mutating tool the description omits any note on persistence, failure handling, or interaction with unread counts, leaving it only minimally adequate.

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%, and the single parameter accepts either a bare string or an array of strings. The phrase "one or more items" is the only signal that both forms are accepted (multiplicity), which partially compensates for the undocumented anyOf shape, but it gives no format for the 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Mark ... items as read"), so the agent knows exactly what state change occurs. It does not, however, distinguish this from siblings such as freshrss_star or freshrss_label, which are also per-item state mutations, leaving sibling selection to 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives (freshrss_star, freshrss_label, freshrss_unread_count) and no prerequisites or exclusions. "One or more items" hints at batching but is not framed as usage guidance.

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