Mark chat read

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds nothing beyond the one-liner: it doesn't say whether the operation is idempotent, whether it affects the peer's read receipt, or whether it must be authorized for that chat.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Nothing redundant or padded.

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?

A state-mutating tool with no output schema and an undocumented required parameter needs more than one sentence. Key facts an agent needs — identifier format, permission requirements, scope of 'all messages' — are absent.

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 0% for the single 'chat' parameter, so the description carries the burden. Saying 'in a chat' only weakly implies the parameter identifies the target chat; it gives no accepted identifier format (username, id, phone) or meaning beyond that.

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 all messages in a chat as read'), which is unambiguous about the operation. It does not differentiate from siblings that also touch read state implicitly (e.g., telegram_get_history), but the action itself is crisp.

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 context, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. An agent gets no guidance on when marking a chat read is appropriate versus simply fetching history, which also often marks messages read.

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