mark_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently covers the core behavior and the max_id semantics, but it does not mention authorization requirements, reversibility, or side effects on unread counts.

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 compact sentence that leads with the action and packs the important scope distinction without filler. Every part contributes to understanding the 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 two-parameter tool, the description covers the core invocation semantics, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. Still, the lack of usage context, alternatives, or behavioral side effects leaves some gaps for an agent deciding when to use it.

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 adds meaningful semantics to max_id by clarifying the inclusive boundary and the 'или весь' whole-chat option when max_id is null. The chat parameter is self-evident from context but receives no additional semantic detail.

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 states a specific action ('Отметить чат прочитанным') and the resource (chat), and adds the scope detail 'до max_id включительно или весь'. This clearly identifies what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling 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 implies usage by explaining the two modes: mark up to a specific max_id or mark the entire chat. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference alternative tools from the sibling list.

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