vk_post_tasks_d0b27e4f6b1a

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a raw proxy requiring authentication, that body is optional, and that path/query parameters are top-level fields with camelCase/snake_case aliases. This gives agents useful operational context beyond the schema, though it does not discuss error behavior or idempotency.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and then provides supporting operational details. It is somewhat repetitive ('Mark a task as read' appears twice), but each sentence contributes useful information and the overall length is appropriate.

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 the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is reasonably complete for this simple read-marking operation. It covers purpose, endpoint, parameter passing conventions, authentication, and the optional body. It does not specify return values or error cases, but those are not essential given the tool's simplicity and the raw-proxy nature disclosed.

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% (both body and projecttask have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that projecttask is a top-level field representing the path parameter, that body is optional, and that parameter names accept camelCase/snake_case aliases. This meaningfully supplements the schema.

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 opens with a clear imperative 'Mark a task as read' and then specifies the exact REST endpoint POST /tasks/{projecttask}/read, distinguishing it from sibling task operations. The behavior is further clarified by 'removing the unread status entry', which is specific and unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when a task should be marked as read for the current user. However, it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, even though sibling tools like vikunja_update_task or other task mutations exist. It provides clear context but no comparative guidance.

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