mark_chat_unread

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action (mark/clear unread dot) without disclosing side effects, prerequisites, or behavior of the 'unread' parameter (e.g., default behavior). For a simple toggle it is minimal but not fully transparent.

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 short sentence that conveys the core function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but lacks contextual details such as what 'unread dot' means visually or how it interacts with other chat states. It covers the essential but could be slightly more informative.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions. The tool description does not explain that 'chat' is the chat identifier or that 'unread' boolean controls the state (default true to mark unread). Thus it adds no meaning beyond field names.

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 explicitly states the tool marks a chat with an unread dot or clears it. The verb 'mark' and resource 'chat unread' are specific. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'mark_as_read' by targeting the opposite state.

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 when to use (to toggle unread badge) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or compare to alternatives like 'mark_as_read'. The context of sibling tools suggests the distinction, but the description itself lacks usage advice.

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