confirm_read

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

Discloses behavior beyond the annotations: unknown IDs are silently skipped, the response reports the confirmed row count, and repeated calls double-increment. The non-idempotency note largely mirrors idempotentHint=false, but the unknown-ID handling, return-count behavior, and auth requirement are genuine additions.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, then side effects, then auth. No filler and every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what comes back (a count of confirmed rows) and covers the auth requirement and skip behavior. Nothing material is missing for a 3-parameter write 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces batch semantics ('one or more memories') and the auth requirement for api_key, but adds nothing about agent_id and no format details for IDs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('confirm that one or more memories have been read') plus the exact effect (increments access_count, sets last_read_at). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_memory, get_memory_evidence, or record_outcome, which do not confirm reads.

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?

Gives clear context for when to call it (marking memories as read after the agent consumes them) and the auth precondition when a registered key exists. It does not name an alternative tool or state a when-not-to-use case, so it falls short of a 5.

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