qui_mark_rss_article_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only discloses the HTTP method (POST) and argument placement. It doesn't describe side effects, idempotency, permissions, or what happens when an article is marked as read, which is a significant gap for a mutating operation.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the endpoint, and every part is informative. No fluff or redundant information.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete for an open-ended mutation tool: it lacks a plain-language purpose, usage context, and detailed parameter examples. An agent would struggle to know what inputs are expected and what effect the call has.

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 schema is a free-form 'arguments' object with 0% field coverage, so the description's explanation of where to place path variables, query values, and body fields adds critical structural meaning. It doesn't enumerate the specific fields (e.g., which instanceID), but the convention helps agents structure calls correctly.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource (POST /instances/{instanceID}/rss/articles/read) and the endpoint path distinguishes it from other RSS tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state the tool's semantic purpose of marking an article as read; it relies on the tool name and endpoint path to convey that.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description only gives the calling convention, not usage context.

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