freshrss_mark_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'Mark articles as read' without mentioning side effects, reversibility, auth requirements, or any state changes. This is minimal disclosure 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 description is a single concise sentence with no fluff, making it highly efficient. However, its extreme brevity borders on under-specification, lacking essential context that would make it front-loaded in a useful way. It scores well on conciseness but not on structure relative to the tool's complexity.

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 mutation nature, no annotations, and a single required parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the tool's behavior, the article_ids parameter, or how it differs from freshrss_mark_stream_read. The presence of an output schema (not provided) slightly mitigates, but the description alone is insufficient for correct usage.

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 should compensate by explaining the article_ids parameter. It does not mention the parameter at all, nor its format, requirement, or purpose beyond the implicit action. The schema itself has a minimal description for article_ids, but the tool description adds no value.

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 articles as read' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like freshrss_mark_unread and freshrss_mark_stream_read by implying per-article marking, though it could be more explicit about the scope (e.g., 'mark the provided articles as read').

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like freshrss_mark_unread or freshrss_mark_stream_read. It does not mention any context, exclusions, or selection criteria.

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