mark_message_handled

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not explain what 'handled' means (e.g., permanent removal from queue, idempotence, or reversibility) or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation, leaving the agent uncertain about consequences.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action and timing with zero unnecessary words. It is concise and well-structured, though it omits some behavioral context (covered elsewhere).

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly adequate, covering purpose and timing. However, it fails to clarify what 'handled' entails behaviorally, and the parameter semantics are underexplained. It meets the minimum viable threshold but leaves clear 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for queue_id, and the description does not mention the parameter at all. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema-level details, such as how to obtain the queue_id or what format it takes.

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 uses a specific verb ('mark') and resource ('queued Discord message') and clearly states the action ('as handled'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling messaging tools (reply, send_message, etc.) by focusing on queue state management rather than message transmission.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'after replying or deciding no reply is needed.' This gives clear contextual timing without naming alternatives, which is appropriate since no sibling tool performs this exact function. It lacks exclusionary guidance but is sufficient for the simple use case.

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