confirm_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 only states the action without disclosing side effects (e.g., state changes, authentication needs, rate limits). The description is too minimal to adequately inform the agent of behavioral traits.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It efficiently conveys the core purpose, though slightly more detail would improve without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description lacks explanation of what 'confirm read progress' entails, the meaning of the sequence number, prerequisites, or typical usage flow. For a tool with two required parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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%. The description only loosely maps 'up_to_seq' via phrase 'up to a seq', omitting details for 'subscription_id'. No parameter descriptions are provided, and the description adds minimal meaning beyond parameter names.

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 'Confirm read progress for a polling-transport subscription up to a seq' clearly states the action (confirm read progress), the resource (polling-transport subscription), and the scope (up to a sequence number). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like poll_pending_events and create_subscription.

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 implies use after polling events to acknowledge receipt, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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