tg_mark_read

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full burden. It discloses the core behavior: the unread=true flip and the mention badge clearing. It also explains the 'reminder' purpose. It does not mention error handling, permissions, or idempotency, but for a simple state toggle, the disclosed behavior is sufficient for an agent to predict outcomes.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args list is clearly structured and each line conveys useful semantics without redundancy. No unnecessary words.

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 state-changing tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, all parameters, and the intended use case for the unread option. There are no critical gaps that would prevent an agent from selecting and invoking the tool correctly, given the schema provides required-parameter and default information.

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?

All three parameters are explained in plain language, adding significant meaning beyond the bare schema. 'chat' accepts a range of identifier formats; 'unread' is clarified as a flip that shows the chat as unread again; 'clear_mentions' specifies the badge behavior. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 first sentence, 'Mark a chat as read, or put the unread mark back on it,' clearly identifies the verb (mark), resource (chat), and the dual read/unread behavior. This specific scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like tg_unread, which likely lists unread chats rather than modifying read 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 provides clear context for when to use each operation: marking read for normal consumption, and using unread=true as a reminder mechanism. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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