skool_mark_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action itself ('Mark as read') without detailing side effects, permissions, reversibility, or any response. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient disclosure, particularly regarding what changes and what the result is.

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. The core action is front-loaded, and the only extra information (the source of the parameter) is presented immediately afterward. 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?

The tool is low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), but the description covers only the action and parameter source. It does not mention the response or any side effects, which might be expected for a mutation tool. Given the minimal annotations and schema richness, the description is adequate for invocation but not fully complete.

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. It does add value by pointing to the source of the channel_id (skool_list_conversations), which is a helpful hint. However, it does not explain the meaning of 'channel_id' beyond the identifier itself, which is a minor gap for a single parameter.

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 a DM conversation as read') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by the action type (e.g., get_conversation, send_message). The phrase 'Get the channel_id from skool_list_conversations' adds context and prevents confusion with other conversation tools.

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 offers clear context by telling the agent how to obtain the required parameter (from skool_list_conversations). It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the purpose is straightforward enough that exclusions are not critical. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' bar.

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