Mark articles

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

The description claims changes are reversible ('All changes are reversible'), which contradicts the annotation 'destructiveHint: true' that implies irreversible or destructive behavior. This is a serious inconsistency. The description also adds useful context (max 100, batch application) but the contradiction undermines trust.

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?

Two sentences cover the tool's purpose, reversibility, and constraints. Every word contributes value; no fluff. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description explains the key behavioral aspects (reversibility, batch limit, application to all articles). It is sufficient for a straightforward mutation tool, though it could mention that labels are user-created per the schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that all changes are applied to all given articles and that at most 100 articles are allowed per call, which is already in the schema (maxItems). No additional parameter-level meaning is provided beyond what the schema gives.

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 tool sets read state, star, and user labels on specific articles. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'mark_all_as_read' which operates on all articles, while 'mark_articles' targets specific ones.

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 explains that changes are reversible by calling with opposite values, and enforces a 100-article limit per call. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'mark_all_as_read' or 'list_articles', but the context is clear enough for typical use.

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