mark_watching_as_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'mark as read' but fails to mention any behavioral traits such as irreversibility, side effects like notification updates, or required permissions. The minimal description leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 extremely concise at only 4 words, front-loaded with the core action. However, conciseness sacrifices completeness; every sentence earns its place but more detail is needed.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what a 'watch' is, what 'mark as read' entails, or any return values. For a simple tool, it lacks necessary context for correct invocation.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra context is provided.

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 action and resource: 'Mark a watch as read'. It's a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like add_watching, delete_watching, or mark_notification_as_read. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools, leaving slight ambiguity with update_watching.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites or conditions for use. The description provides no context for the agent to decide between this and sibling tools like mark_notification_as_read or update_watching.

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