mark_as_read

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe repeated calls. The description adds 'clears the unread counter,' which is a useful behavioral detail not captured in annotations. No contradictions found.

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 sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place. No redundancy.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose and effect, but lacks details on parameter formatting and return value. An output schema exists, which may document return values, but the description does not reference it. For a simple tool, it meets minimum viability but leaves gaps.

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% (no description for the 'channel' parameter). The tool description does not explain what the channel parameter expects (e.g., ID, name) or provide format hints. This is a significant gap for a single-parameter tool.

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 action: mark all messages in a channel as read, and adds the effect of clearing the unread counter. It specifies the resource (channel) and verb (mark as read), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_unread_channels or send_message.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, suitable contexts, or when not to use it. Sibling tools exist (e.g., get_unread_channels, get_channel_info) but no comparisons are provided.

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