spv_documents_mark_read

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is largely covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing the blast radius: omitting uuid marks ALL unread company documents read, which is the main behavioral risk an agent must know. It does not mention reversibility or required permissions, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the primary action first and the bulk condition folded into a parenthetical. Every clause is load-bearing; nothing is redundant.

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?

With only two optional params, full annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to call it correctly, especially the bulk-read footgun. Minor gaps remain around the multi-tenant context (companyId override) and confirmation of what the call returns.

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% and the description only restates the uuid omission semantics already present in the schema. The companyId parameter (which overrides STORNO_COMPANY_ID) is never mentioned in the description, so no meaning is added beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Mark one SPV document as read") and immediately qualifies the scope with the bulk variant. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like spv_documents_list, spv_documents_get, and spv_documents_download, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 parenthetical explains the conditional behavior that selects the bulk path ("when uuid is omitted"), which is genuine invocation guidance. However, it says nothing about when this tool should be preferred over related operations or any prerequisites (e.g., must the document be fetched/list first).

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