freshrss_mark_stream_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool mutates read state for an entire stream/folder in one operation and even shows a recovery pattern: mark all read, then mark keepers unread. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool name and schema.

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 compact and well-structured: action, efficiency rationale, parameter guidance, then a workflow pattern. Every sentence earns its place, and the main bulk-scope fact is front-loaded.

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 bulk mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the action, the target selection, and a recommended follow-up workflow. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. The only small gap is that older_than_hours is left entirely to the schema rather than reinforced in the prose.

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 description adds practical examples for the stream parameter ('all', 'tech', 'ML', 'security') and reinforces the default behavior. However, it does not mention older_than_hours at all; the nested schema supplies that parameter's semantics. This reaches the baseline but does not go beyond what the schema already provides.

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 all articles in a stream/folder as read in one call.' The bulk scope is explicit, and the efficiency note differentiates it from marking individual articles, allowing an agent to distinguish it from sibling freshrss_mark_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 clearly signals when to prefer this tool by saying it is 'MUCH more efficient than marking individual articles.' It also gives concrete invocation guidance with 'all' or folder names, and a common pattern with mark_unread. It does not explicitly name freshrss_mark_read as the single-article alternative, but the context is clear enough.

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