mark_test_result_not_viewed

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

Annotations already declare this as a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the operation, such as what exactly is destroyed, whether authentication or special permissions are required, or side effects on related entities.

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 two sentences that say essentially the same thing: the second sentence repeats the first with no additional information. It is short but includes redundant wording that does not earn its place.

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 destructive mutation tool with nested parameters, no output schema, and an existing sibling counterpart, the description is too thin. It omits usage guidance, parameter details, side effects, and return behavior, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe invocation.

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 has low description coverage, yet the description only says 'using its unique identifier' without naming the testResultId parameter or explaining the query.with relations option. It does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 states a clear verb and resource: marking a test result as not viewed using its identifier. It is understandable without the schema, but it does not distinguish this tool from its obvious sibling mark_test_result_viewed beyond the opposite state.

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?

It gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus mark_test_result_viewed, nor any prerequisites or context about when unsetting viewed status is appropriate. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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