mark_read_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing side effects, irreversibility, impact on unread counts, or the caution associated with all_entries (even though the schema notes 'use with caution'). This is minimal and provides no additional behavioral context beyond the name.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. While it is brief, it is efficient for what it states. It is not verbose, though it could be enriched 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?

The tool has three mutually exclusive parameters and a potentially destructive all_entries option, yet the description does not explain usage requirements or what happens in each case. It also fails to differentiate from sibling tools. Given the lack of annotations, this is insufficient for an agent to safely and correctly invoke the tool.

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 covers 100% of parameters with textual descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add any parameter-specific semantics, leaving the schema to fully document the parameters.

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 (mark), the resource (entries), and the state change (as read). It distinguishes from the sibling mark_unread_tool by the word 'read', but doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or scopes beyond the generic resource.

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 like mark_unread_tool or read_entry_tool. There is also no mention that exactly one of feed_id, entry_id, or all_entries should be specified. The description offers no context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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