mark_publications_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that items are stamped with a read time to prevent resurfacing and that the queue is cleared. This is adequate, though it could mention idempotency or side 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 concise and well-structured: one sentence summarizing action, then behavioral detail, then explicit Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and a straightforward return value, the description covers the purpose, input, behavior, and output completely. It references the necessary sibling tool for input, making it self-contained.

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?

The only parameter 'ids' is described in detail: it is a list of row IDs from get_new_publications, and an empty list is a no-op. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, which only specifies type and requirement. Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates fully.

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 verb 'Mark' and resource 'new publications as read', explicitly mentioning clearing items from the 'new publications' queue. It references the sibling tool get_new_publications for input IDs, distinguishing it from other tools.

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?

It tells agents to use IDs from get_new_publications, providing clear input source. It also notes that an empty list is a no-op. However, it could explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools, but it is sufficient for a simple mark operation.

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