mark_chat_read

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by noting read receipts are subject to privacy settings, the action is irreversible, and the exact return string format. Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness; no contradictions.

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 three concise sentences, each essential: purpose, alternative, and return format. No redundant information.

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 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all necessary context: action, constraints, sibling differentiation, and return value. No gaps identified.

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 descriptions already cover both parameters fully. The description adds context that 'limit' applies to the most recent incoming messages and defaults to 50, reinforcing the tool's behavior.

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 tool acks the most recent incoming messages to clear the unread badge, specifies read receipts, and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'mark_read' by contrasting ack-by-chat vs ack-by-message-ID.

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 tells when to use this tool (for acking the most recent incoming messages in a chat) and when to use the alternative 'mark_read' (for ack-by-message-ID). It also warns that the action cannot be undone.

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