mark_item_unread

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action 'mark as unread' without disclosing idempotency, permissions, side effects, or return behavior—critical gaps 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 one short sentence with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and front-loads 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?

Even though the tool is simple with one well-described parameter and no output schema, the absence of annotations and lack of guidance about effects or prerequisites leaves the description minimally complete but with clear gaps in behavioral context.

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?

The schema fully covers the single parameter item_id with a clear description, and the tool description adds no additional semantic detail. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'mark' and resource 'item' with the target state 'unread', clearly conveying the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings by being the opposite of mark_item_read and targeting items rather than feeds, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 mark_item_read or mark_feed_read. The description only states the action, leaving the selection context to the agent.

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