freshrss_mark_unread

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 indicates a mutation (marking unread) but does not mention authentication requirements, idempotency, behavior with already-unread articles, or what the response looks like. This is a minimal disclosure for a state-changing 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 short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it is so terse that it omits useful context that another sentence could have supplied, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 tool with no annotations, an output schema, and minimal description, important context is missing: when to use it vs siblings, prerequisites like authentication, behavior on invalid IDs, and return value semantics. The description is not enough for an agent to invoke the tool confidently in all expected situations.

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 reported as 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not mention article_ids, its required status, or its format. The only hint is the field name and the generic schema note 'List of article IDs', but the main description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 'Mark articles as unread.' is a clear, specific verb+resource statement. It states exactly what the tool does, and the action is unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like freshrss_mark_read or freshrss_mark_stream_read, relying on the tool name for contrast.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as freshrss_mark_read, freshrss_mark_stream_read, or freshrss_star_article. The description simply states the action, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria from the tool name and sibling list.

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