mark_chat_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core effect (marks a chat channel as read) and the threshold behavior (up to a message id), which is useful. However, it does not disclose permission requirements, idempotency, or whether the operation is reversible or affects unread counts.

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 efficient sentence with zero filler. The operation and its key parameter semantics are conveyed immediately, and no sentence is wasted.

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?

The tool is simple, and the description covers the core operation and main parameter roles. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and no usage or alternative guidance, the definition leaves some context gaps that could affect an agent's confidence in selection and invocation.

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 for parameter meaning. It does connect channel_id to 'chat channel' and message_id to the 'message id' read threshold, but it does not clarify whether the message_id is inclusive/exclusive, how the channel is identified, or any constraints beyond what the schema's types imply.

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 ('chat channel') and adds the precise threshold 'up to a message id'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mark_notifications_read, which operates on notifications rather than chat channels.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention mark_notifications_read or any other sibling, nor does it describe conditions or exclusions. Usage context is only implied by the tool's name and description.

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