freshrss_star_article

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 transparency. 'Star articles' conveys the intended state change but does not disclose whether starring is idempotent, whether authentication is required, how already-starred articles are handled, or what side effects occur.

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 concise and front-loaded with the action, containing no wasted words. However, it is so terse that it skips all structural context such as prerequisites or usage examples, making it minimal rather than appropriately helpful.

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?

Although the operation is simple and the output schema exists, the complete lack of annotations and usage guidance makes this description insufficient on its own. An agent still cannot tell whether prior authentication is required, whether the operation is reversible, or how the sibling unstar tool differs in practice.

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?

With a reported schema description coverage of 0%, the description was expected to compensate for missing parameter documentation, but it does not mention article_ids, their format, or any constraints. 'Star articles' only loosely implies that the provided IDs identify the articles to be starred; it adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter name.

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 states a specific verb ('Star') and a clear resource ('articles'), making the tool's basic function immediately understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like freshrss_mark_read or freshrss_add_label, but the action is unambiguous enough to avoid confusion with freshrss_unstar_article.

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 such as freshrss_unstar_article, freshrss_mark_read, or freshrss_add_label. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or routing conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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