mark_messages_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one real constraint — broadcast channels are unsupported — which is genuine behavioral context (partially echoed by the channel param schema description). However, it omits permission requirements, side effects, and whether the operation is reversible or idempotent.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action and its key scope limitation with no filler. Every clause 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?

There is no output schema, so return values need not be explained, and the schema fully covers parameters. But for a mutation tool with zero annotations, the description does not fill the gaps around permissions, error cases, or effect on chat state, leaving it only minimally 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 100%, so all three parameters (maxId, channel, messageIds) are already documented in the schema, including that messageIds is optional and defaults to marking all messages. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (mark messages as read) plus the scope of chats it applies to, and explicitly excludes broadcast channels, which distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like get_recent_messages or check_unread_messages. It stops short of naming a sibling to contrast with, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as check_unread_messages or get_recent_messages, and no prerequisites (e.g. membership, auth state) are stated. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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