mark_as_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Mark as read' implies a state change, but no details are given about side effects (e.g., updating unread counts, setting read cursor), required permissions, or reversibility. The description is too vague for a mutation tool without annotations.

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?

Extremely concise at one sentence. The information is front-loaded but may be too brief for complete understanding. However, it contains no filler and every word is necessary. A 4 is appropriate for efficient communication, though slightly lacking in structure.

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 (two params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It identifies what the tool does and the key parameter. However, it does not describe the outcome (e.g., success response, any confirmation), leaving the agent without full context. A score of 3 reflects adequate but incomplete coverage.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The schema already explains group_id (from list_spaces) and is_dm (True for DM). The description merely restates the action. No added value for parameters.

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 action ('mark as read') and the target resources ('space or DM'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'read_messages' which likely fetches messages, but does not explicitly differentiate from other marking actions. A score of 4 is given for clear verb+resource, but lacking explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_messages' or 'send_message'. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as needing the group_id from list_spaces, though that is implied by the parameter description. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice is provided.

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