reading_mark_read

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

Annotations provide only a title, leaving the description to carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions updating last-read progress but does not explain if the action is idempotent, reversible, or has side effects. No indications of required permissions or rate limits.

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 extremely short (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core action. It is concise but at the cost of omitting useful details. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, param descriptions, and behavioral details, the description is incomplete. For a simple action, it might suffice, but it fails to inform the agent about return values, state changes, or how it fits with sibling tools.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for bookId or chunkId. The description does not add any parameter meaning, leaving the agent to infer what these parameters represent.

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 action (mark a chunk as read) and the resource (chunk), and distinguishes from sibling tools like reading_read_chunk or reading_get_progress. However, it could be more explicit about being a state update action.

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 reading_read_chunk to view content or reading_get_progress to check status. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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