mark_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses important traits: recipient-only authorization and silent skipping of already-acknowledged, foreign, and actively claimed ids. It also notes compatibility for free messages and expired claims, though it could say more about the acknowledgement side effect and return behavior.

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 and appropriately short for a one-parameter tool. Most sentences earn their place by covering authorization and skip behavior, though the final compatibility sentence is somewhat dense.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the key invocation constraints and edge cases, with the main remaining gap being explicit guidance relative to sibling message-handling tools.

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 for the undocumented message_ids parameter. It clarifies that ids refer to messages and are subject to recipient-only acknowledgement, but it does not explain array/batch behavior, duplicate handling, or empty-input semantics.

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: acknowledge messages by id. It also clarifies the recipient-only scope. It does not explicitly distinguish mark_read from siblings such as claim_message or receive_messages.

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 gives clear context that only the recipient can acknowledge and that some ids are skipped silently. However, it does not explicitly say when to use mark_read instead of claim_message, release_message, or receive_messages.

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