mark_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the persistent effect of setting the read flag and its impact on future polls. It does not describe error behavior, reversibility, or authorization requirements, but for a simple state mutation it provides reasonable transparency.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The action and its purpose are both included, and every word contributes.

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 tool with only two flat, required parameters, this is nearly adequate, but the description still lacks explanation of what valid values look like and what the call returns. No output schema or annotations exist to fill that gap.

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%, so the description must compensate. It maps 'message' to message_id only and gives no additional meaning to 'address', leaving both parameter names to carry all the semantics. This is a clear gap.

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 specific action ('mark one message as read') plus the consequence ('so later polls can skip it'). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like read_messages or wait_for_message because it describes a state mutation rather than retrieval or waiting.

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 phrase 'so later polls can skip it' implies the tool is meant to be used before subsequent polling, giving contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over read_messages, wait_for_message, or delete_message, so alternatives are not named.

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