mark_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. While it states that the tool mutates article read/bookmark status, it does not explain whether the operation is idempotent, whether absent booleans are left unchanged, or any permission requirements.

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 that is easy to parse. It omits unnecessary words, but its brevity may contribute to ambiguity about whether both flags can be set simultaneously.

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 is simple with only three parameters and no output schema, but the description lacks important context such as whether this is a partial update, how the two booleans interact, and whether the article must already exist. The schema covers parameter types but not these higher-level behavioral details.

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 parameter descriptions already adequately explain each field. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics. However, the word 'or' in the description might misleadingly suggest exclusivity, which is a minor negative signal that keeps the score at baseline 3.

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 tool's function: marking an article as read or bookmarked. The verb 'mark' and resource 'article' are specific, and the two possible actions (read/bookmarked) are identified. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'article_update', though the use case is distinct.

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 such as 'save_content' or 'article_update'. The description does not mention prerequisites, edge cases, or typical scenarios.

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