ozon_chat_read

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full transparency burden. It reveals only the surface action and does not mention side effects, idempotency, whether the operation is reversible, or any impact on the chat's messages.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the Russian gloss directly clarifies the English action. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a one-parameter state-mutation tool, this is minimally viable: the agent knows the action and the required ID. However, with no output schema, no annotations, and no detail on response or side effects, it is not fully complete.

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 does not explain chat_id's format, provenance, or expected values beyond the property name itself. The tool name and description make the general meaning obvious, but the description adds no parameter-level detail.

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 uses a clear verb and resource: 'Mark a chat as read' (пометить прочитанным). This distinguishes it from sibling chat tools like ozon_chat_list, ozon_chat_history, and ozon_chat_send because it names a specific state-changing action.

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 one-line description implies the tool should be used when a chat needs to be marked as read, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparison with alternatives such as ozon_chat_updates.

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