waha_mark_chat_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation but does not disclose whether read receipts are sent to the other party, whether the unread counter is reset server-side, or whether the operation requires an active session — all material for a write action on a messaging account.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity contributes to the unspecified areas rather than being solely a virtue.

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 explained. However, with no annotations and no parameter documentation, the description leaves the agent without any behavioral context for a mutation on a live messaging session — a gap this simple tool's description should have covered.

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%, and the description only implicitly identifies 'chat' as the target. It says nothing about the required 'session' parameter (which session/account the chat belongs to) or the expected chat_id format, leaving both parameters documented nowhere.

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?

States a specific verb ('Mark ... as read') and resource ('all messages in a chat'), which clearly separates it from siblings like waha_get_chat_messages or waha_list_chats. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the action is 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?

No indication of when to use this versus reading messages via waha_get_chat_messages, nor any prerequisites (session must be running, chat must exist). The agent must infer usage entirely from the one-line purpose.

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