Отметить чат прочитанным

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the default value for user_id (from env) and the dryRun parameter's effect. Annotations already indicate mutability and non-destructiveness, and the description does not contradict them.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without any superfluous information. It is optimally concise.

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?

The tool is simple and the description covers the main action and key parameters. It lacks information about return values, but since there is no output schema, this omission is acceptable. The description is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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%, but the tool description adds meaningful context for user_id (default from env), dryRun (preview without API call), and idempotencyKey (deduplication and caching). This exceeds the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool's action: marking all unread messages in a chat as read. It uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling messenger tools that perform other actions like deleting, getting, or sending messages.

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 implies the tool is used to mark chats as read, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., using messenger_get_messages_v3 to read messages). No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are given.

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