token_bowl_chat_mark_message_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 says nothing about auth requirements, whether the operation is idempotent, whether it affects the unread counter returned by token_bowl_chat_get_unread_count, or what happens for an invalid/already-read message_id.

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 core action is front-loaded in a single sentence and the usage cue follows immediately. The 'Args:' block largely duplicates the schema, which is mild padding but conventional and not disruptive.

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 single-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basics but omits failure behavior, effect on unread state, and required permissions. It is minimum viable rather than 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 there is one required parameter, so the description must compensate. It restates the field as 'Unique identifier of the message to mark as read', which confirms scope but adds no format, source, or lookup guidance beyond the parameter name.

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 gives a specific verb ('Mark ... as read') and resource ('a specific message'), and the word 'specific' implicitly separates it from the sibling token_bowl_chat_mark_all_messages_read. It is clear but never names that alternative explicitly, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

'Use this ... after you've processed or viewed it' gives a timing cue for invocation. However, it never mentions when NOT to use it or points to mark_all_messages_read / get_unread_messages as alternatives, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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