mark_publications_read

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

Describes the internal action: stamps each with a read time to prevent resurfacing. No annotations present, so description fully compensates. No contradiction.

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?

A single concise paragraph followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is informative with 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 an output schema, the description fully covers usage, parameter semantics, and return value. No gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description provides a clear meaning for the 'ids' parameter: 'List of new_publications row IDs to mark as read; an empty list is a no-op.' This adds essential context beyond the schema.

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 'Mark new publications as read by their IDs' and explains the effect of clearing them from the 'new publications' queue. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_new_publications' which returns the IDs.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use IDs from 'get_new_publications' and notes that an empty list is a no-op. No explicit when-not-to-use, but context is sufficient.

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