Marks an Avito conversation as read and updates its unread message counter, so unread badges reflect messages you have already viewed.
Marque explicitement une conversation Avito comme lue et modifie son compteur de messages non lus.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| conversationId | Yes | Identifiant exact d’une conversation existante retourné par Avito. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare a write operation (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint true, idempotentHint true). The description adds useful context by stating that the unread message counter is modified, but it does not explain permissions, reversibility, or the full side effects of the update.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the operation and its effect directly, which is appropriate for a one-parameter tool.
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?
For a simple mutation with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main action and its result on the unread counter. It is missing usage guidance and return-value expectations, but those gaps are minor given the tool's low complexity.
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?
The input schema fully documents the single conversationId parameter, including that it must be an existing Avito conversation identifier. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 gives a clear verb and resource: it marks an Avito conversation as read and modifies its unread message counter. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from related sibling tools such as avito_unread_count or avito_get_conversation, so it falls short of a 5.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative tools are named. The word 'explicitement' hints at a manual marking action, but it does not tell an agent when this tool is preferable to alternatives like avito_list_conversations or avito_get_conversation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.