post_call_log_mark_all_as_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and error codes, omitting information on idempotency, side effects, required permissions, or whether parameters affect behavior. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's effects.

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 very short and front-loaded with the purpose, but it lacks important details. Every sentence is used, but overall it is under-specified, which is not an efficient use of conciseness when critical information is missing.

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 moderate complexity (8 parameters, 0 required, no annotations, output schema exists), the description is too brief. It does not explain how the parameters interact with the 'mark all' action, leaving a gap for the agent. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the incomplete behavioral and parameter semantics.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. However, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema and, critically, contradicts it by claiming 'mark all' while the schema offers parameters that presumably filter. This misleads the agent into thinking parameters may be ignored or are unnecessary, reducing clarity.

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 states 'Mark all CallEntry call entries as read', which names the action and resource. However, the input schema includes many parameters like 'new', 'duration', etc. that imply filtering, while the description says 'all'. This mismatch creates ambiguity about the actual scope, making purpose unclear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'post_call_log_delete_all' or 'get_call_log'. It mentions error codes but does not clarify the scope (all vs filtered) or prerequisites. The agent receives no direction on appropriate usage context.

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