reading_mark_read

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

The description discloses the core behavioral effects: marking a chunk as read and updating last-read progress. But annotations provide no readOnly or destructive hints, and the description does not address idempotency, reversibility, how progress interacts with reading_continue/reading_get_progress, or what happens on repeated calls.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action ('Mark a chunk as read') and then states the additional side effect ('update last-read progress'), earning its place with minimal words.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain the relationship between last-read progress and the broader reading workflow, nor does it indicate what the response contains. Since there is no output schema, a bit more context about expected return behavior would help.

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, but it adds no parameter-level detail. bookId and chunkId are self-explanatory names, yet the description never clarifies that chunkId identifies the chunk within the book identified by bookId, or any constraints on these values.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Mark a chunk as read' and 'update last-read progress.' This clearly identifies a state-change operation and separates it from retrieval tools like reading_read_chunk and progress-query tools like reading_get_progress, even without naming them.

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 usage context is implied: call this after a user finishes reading a chunk to record progress. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives or situations where another tool should be preferred.

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