Mark signals read

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, but the description reinforces idempotency with a concrete phrasing ('Marking a read signal again changes nothing') and adds the 1-to-20 batch bound plus the two distinct return shapes. With no annotations it would be even higher, but the annotations already carry the safety profile.

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, both front-loaded: scope and constraint first, behavior and return shape second. Every clause carries information (mutual exclusion, idempotency, batch bounds, response shape) with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still helpfully distinguishes the two response shapes ({marked, failed} vs {company_id, marked_count}), which is exactly what an agent needs to branch on after the call. For a two-param mutation with full schema coverage, nothing material is missing.

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 would be 3, but the description adds real semantics the schema cannot express: the exactly-one-of relationship between the two parameters and the 1-to-20 cap tied to the array. It does not add format detail beyond the 24-hex pattern already in the schema.

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 the specific verb ('Marks signals read') and resource, and immediately enumerates the two mutually exclusive scopes (signal_ids vs company_id). The two-mode structure is clear enough that an agent knows exactly what the tool does without opening the schema.

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?

"Pass exactly one of the two" is an explicit and necessary constraint because required=[] in the schema, so nothing else enforces it. The pairing of signal_ids with heliyos_signals_list gives provenance guidance. No explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool is named, keeping it just below a 5.

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