mark_stories_read

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no extra behavioral context such as idempotency, side effects, or permission requirements. The 'up to id' scope merely restates the max_story_id parameter.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return details are not needed. However, with no parameter explanations and no usage guidance, the description only covers the basic purpose. It is adequate but incomplete for guiding effective 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 0%, yet the description only clarifies max_story_id ('up to the specified id') while leaving peer entirely unexplained. It does not adequately compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 specifies the action ('mark stories read') and the resource ('stories'), with a precise scope ('up to the specified id'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like mark_read (which likely targets dialogs) and story-specific read/delete tools.

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 when marking stories as read up to a certain ID, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like mark_read or get_stories_by_id. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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