Thenvoi MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's actions (setting timestamps, updating statuses) and error conditions (422 if no processing attempt), though it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or idempotency. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by detailed behavioral notes and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's complexity (state-changing operation with prerequisites) and no annotations, the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral effects, error handling, parameters, and notes the existence of an output schema (returns success message). No significant gaps remain for agent understanding.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for both parameters by explaining 'chat_id' as 'unique identifier of the chat room' and 'message_id' as 'ID of the message to mark as processed', which clarifies their roles beyond the schema's basic titles.

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 states the specific action ('Mark a message as successfully processed') and resource ('message'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'mark_agent_message_failed' and 'mark_agent_message_processing' by focusing on successful completion. It explicitly defines the verb and target, avoiding tautology.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Call this when the agent finishes processing a message successfully'), when not to use it ('Requires an active processing attempt'), and names the alternative prerequisite ('Call mark_agent_message_processing first'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools.

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