mark_paper

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that it delegates to an internal operation, which is not helpful. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting status), required permissions, or the behavior on invalid input beyond what the input schema already states.

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 with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose. The second sentence mentions internal delegation, which is of limited value to an AI agent and could be omitted, but overall it is efficient and avoids 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?

The tool is simple, and the schema covers parameters well. However, the description does not explain the return value or success/failure behavior despite the presence of an output schema (as indicated by context). This leaves a gap in understanding what the tool produces.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, aligning with the baseline score of 3. No extra context is provided for the slug or status fields.

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 tool's action: 'Update the reading status of a paper note.' This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_paper or label_paper, as it focuses solely on status changes.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain when to use mark_paper instead of label_paper or other paper manipulation tools, leaving the AI agent without contextual decision support.

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