unmark_review_viewed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions user-scoping ('for the current user') but omits potential edge cases, reversibility, or prerequisites. The description adds minimal context beyond the core action, which is a gap given the lack of annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly efficient.

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 one parameter and has an output schema, so return values are covered structurally. However, the description lacks explicit context on when to use this tool relative to the closely related 'mark_reviewed', leaving the agent to infer the intended use case. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The schema already fully documents the single parameter 'review_id' with a description that matches the tool's description. The description adds no new semantic information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies per the rubric.

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 single review item as not-viewed') with a specific verb and resource, and explicitly scopes it to 'the current user'. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'mark_reviewed', which performs the opposite 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?

The description implies usage for reversing viewed status, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mark_reviewed'. No exclusions or explicit alternative guidance is provided, leaving usage to be inferred from the name and description.

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