mark_inquiry_read

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It does clearly state the state-change nature ('mark as read'), but it does not mention idempotency, whether there is a response, or any effect on other state (e.g., unread counts). For a simple mutation, this is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 zero filler. Every word contributes to the core action and resource, making it optimally concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description tells an agent what it does and the schema tells it what to pass. It lacks any note on return values or success indication, but given the trivial action and the annotations, the essential context for correct invocation is present.

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%, with the uuid parameter already described as 'Inquiry UUID from list_inquiries'. The description adds no further parameter-level detail beyond naming the resource type, so it neither compensates nor detracts from the schema. 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 uses a specific verb ('mark') with a clear resource ('vendor inquiry conversation') and the resulting state ('as read'). It clearly distinguishes this mutation tool from siblings like list_inquiries or get_inquiry_conversation, which read or list rather than change state.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as calling it after get_inquiry_conversation or only for unread inquiries. The intended use is only implied by the verb and resource, offering no exclusions or contextual prerequisites.

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