Mark chat read

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

Annotations say it is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive action; the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: one-call confirmation-free execution, fetching the last history page when message_id is omitted, and the verified SeenMarker effect that resets unread state. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. The third sentence on SeenMarker verification is useful but slightly implementation-detail heavy; overall every sentence contributes.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, optional behavior, safety profile, and side effects (history fetch, unread reset). Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents chat, seqno, and message_id. The description only restates the message_id optional behavior and adds no new parameter syntax or resolution detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Отмечает чат прочитанным' (marks chat as read). The 'ОДНИМ вызовом' qualifier and the SeenMarker semantic detail clearly distinguish the action from sibling tools like get_history or delete_message.

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?

There is no direct sibling that marks chats read, so the description instead gives practical usage context: it is safe ('без confirm (безобидно)') and explains the two modes — with or without message_id. This is clear context, though it stops short of explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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