mark_test_result_viewed

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, destructive write with open-world effects, so the description does not contradict them. But the description adds nothing beyond them: it never says what state changes, whether the view is attributed to the calling user, whether the call is reversible, or what permissions are required for what is flagged as a destructive 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?

Two sentences where the second is a near-verbatim restatement of the first; the only added token is 'using its unique identifier.' Half the text is redundant rather than front-loading useful detail.

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?

Annotations carry the safety profile and there is no output schema to explain, which lowers the burden. Still, for a nested-object, zero-coverage, destructive mutation tool, the description leaves the identifier requirement and the relation-expansion option undocumented, so it is only minimally viable.

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 description coverage is reported at 0% and the description only alludes to an 'unique identifier' without naming the `path.testResultId` parameter or its nesting. The optional `query.with` relations parameter — which materially changes the response payload — is completely unaddressed, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('mark a test result as viewed'), so an agent knows the operation. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from the sibling `mark_test_result_not_viewed`, and the second sentence merely restates the first with 'using its unique identifier' appended, adding no new distinguishing information.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative `mark_test_result_not_viewed` or of how this relates to reading test results. The agent must infer the context entirely from the tool name.

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