Mark a conversation as read

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds the useful scope detail that ALL messages in the conversation are affected, but discloses no auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects beyond that. Modest value over structured fields.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the motivating example trailing. No wasted words and nothing buried that an agent needs.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers scope and a usage cue, which is sufficient for a one-parameter mutation tool, though it could say more about when not to call 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 100% and the single peer_id parameter is documented as 'User ID of the person the community is talking to'. The description reinforces the 'one conversation' framing but adds no format or type detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('mark every message in one conversation ... as read') and scopes it to the community's inbox. It is clearly distinct in meaning from siblings like get_conversations or get_history, but it does not explicitly name a sibling to route the agent away from them.

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 phrase 'e.g. after answering it' gives an implied usage scenario but offers no when-not guidance and names no alternative tool. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer when marking-as-read is or isn't appropriate.

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