mark_read

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

Beyond annotations (idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds crucial context: senders receive read receipts subject to privacy settings, unread badge decrements, and the action is irreversible. 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?

Three concise sentences: main action and effects, limitation and alternative, return value. Front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description includes the return format. It covers behavior, limitations, alternative, and parameter details comprehensively for a tool with three parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by clarifying that message_ids must be non-empty and should come from list_messages, and provides JID format examples for chat_jid and sender_jid.

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 verb 'mark' and the resource 'specific incoming messages' with specific effects (read receipts, unread badge decrement). It also implicitly distinguishes from sibling mark_chat_read by mentioning the alternative.

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?

Explicitly states when not to use (cannot be unread once acked) and provides an alternative tool (mark_chat_read) for clearing the entire chat unread badge without enumerating message IDs.

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