qbittorrent_rss_mark_as_read

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

Annotations indicate readOnly=false and destructive=false, which is consistent with the description. The description adds the scope of the operation (feed or single article) but does not disclose other behavioral traits like reversibility 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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded and concise, with no redundant information. Every word adds value.

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 mutation tool, the description covers the core action and the optional scoping via article_id. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. It lacks only minor context like prerequisites or error conditions.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains article_id's purpose but does not explicitly define item_path as the feed path, though it is implied by 'Mark an RSS feed as read'. The parameter meanings are partially clarified.

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 the resource 'an RSS feed', and distinguishes from siblings by noting the optional article_id for marking only one article. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage via the optional article_id parameter, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like remove_item or move_item. It provides no exclusionary guidance.

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