Mark Messages in Chat as Read

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those hints: the environment prerequisite, the badge-clearing side effect, and the all-or-up-to-ID scope. No contradiction with the annotations was 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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and each sentence adds a distinct piece of information: scope, mutation requirement, and side effect.

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 low-complexity mutation with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it covers scope, prerequisites, and effect. The main gap is that 'up to a specific ID' is not representable through the current parameters, which leaves a small but real ambiguity.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters thoroughly, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'up to a specific ID' adds semantic interest, but it is ambiguous because the input schema exposes no message_id parameter; an agent may not know how to express that threshold with the declared inputs.

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 names the exact operation ('Mark...as read'), the resource ('messages in a chat'), and the scope ('all messages or messages up to a specific ID'). It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which handle sending, editing, deleting, pinning, or searching rather than changing read state.

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 provides clear usage context: it is a mutation, requires TELEGRAM_SEND_ENABLED=true, and clears the unread badge counter. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name an alternative, but no sibling tool directly competes with mark-as-read functionality.

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