Mark stories as viewed

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

Annotations include openWorldHint and idempotentHint, so the description is not expected to repeat these. It adds the mechanism 'increment view counters' but does not disclose potential side effects, error behavior, or limitations beyond the basic mutation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary content. It is efficient but could have added parameter context without harming conciseness.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and the presence of three parameters, the description is too thin. It does not clarify what 'peer' refers to, how storyIds map to the peer, or what the tool returns. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 description provides no explanation for any of the three parameters (peer, storyIds, accountId). With schema description coverage at 0%, the agent has to infer meanings solely from types and requiredness, which is inadequate for correct invocation.

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 action ('increment view counters') and resource ('stories'), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_stories or send_story. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or elaborate on its exact scope.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing to fetch stories first, or exclusions, such as not using it for marking messages as read.

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