mark_alert_read

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, yet it does not say whether marking read is reversible, whether read alerts disappear from get_alerts or merely change status, whether the call is idempotent, or what happens if the alert_id is invalid. '保持预警列表干净' hints at list hygiene but never explains the mechanism, which leaves real ambiguity for a mutation tool.

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 opening sentence is well front-loaded and earns its place, but the example list is padded, and the second example actively misleads rather than clarifying. Trimming or correcting the examples would make the whole definition tighter and more accurate.

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 output schema means return values need not be explained, but for a mutation tool with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the description should still cover provenance of alert_id, idempotency, and the effect on subsequent get_alerts results. None of that is present, and the bulk-read example adds a misleading expectation rather than filling the gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single alert_id parameter. It only restates the field name as '预警记录 ID' and adds no meaning beyond the schema title, and says nothing about where to obtain a valid ID (e.g., from get_alerts) or what form it takes.

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 ('将某条预警标记为已读') and adds a purpose clause ('保持预警列表干净'), which distinguishes it from the read-only siblings like get_alerts. The scope is slightly clouded by the example '所有预警都标为已读', which implies bulk behavior the single-alert_id schema cannot deliver.

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?

The user-phrasing examples imply when to invoke the tool, which is useful context not present in structured fields. However, there are no explicit exclusions or alternatives, and the bulk-reading example contradicts the single-record scope, leaving the agent to infer which requests this tool can actually satisfy.

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