Mark an issue as read

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

Annotations already indicate it is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the authorization class ('board_or_agent') and the API path, which provides some context. However, it does not disclose what marking as read actually does (e.g., affects notifications, is reversible), so the added value is modest.

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 very concise (two sentences) with no superfluous text. It front-loads the purpose. However, its brevity comes at the cost of missing critical details, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

This is a simple state-changing tool. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, the description lacks context on what 'read' means, how it affects the issue lifecycle, and how it relates to sibling tools like deletion. It is minimally adequate but incomplete.

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 coverage is 50%, but the description does not explain the parameters at all. It does not mention the required 'id' or the optional 'body' payload, leaving the agent without guidance on how to properly invoke the tool.

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 title and description clearly state the action: 'Mark an issue as read'. The verb+resource pattern is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'pc_delete_issues_by_id_read' which undoes this action, missing an opportunity to clarify the distinction.

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 'pc_delete_issues_by_id_read' or other issue manipulation tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, side effects, or typical scenarios.

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