set_consumption_status

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the core action and date range, but does not mention side effects, idempotency, authorization requirements, or whether the operation is a bulk update that might affect a large number of records. This is a significant gap for a mutating 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 clear sentence with no filler. The key action and scope are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the meaning. It is an appropriately sized and well-structured description.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain how the optional filters work, what the result of the operation is, or any constraints or caveats. An agent would need to inspect the schema and still lack key behavioral and contextual information to invoke this correctly with confidence.

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%, and the description provides no meaningful parameter semantics. It mentions 'UTC date range' but does not elaborate on the format or relationship of startDate/endDate, nor does it clarify the optional 'category' and 'feedUrls' filters or the 'status' enum. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 ('Set') and resource ('consumed or unconsumed status for stored news') and adds a date range scope. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'consume_news' or other news-related tools, so it lacks the full sibling differentiation needed for a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'consume_news' or 'fetch_news'. The description simply states the action without any context for selection, exclusions, or prerequisites. This is essentially no guidance beyond the implied use case.

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