Mark Chat Read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a significant side-effect: the sender sees two blue checkmarks ('Собеседник увидит две синие галочки'), making this a noticeable action. This is genuinely informative beyond merely stating 'marks as read'.

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?

Two compact sentences: first states the action and scope rule, second gives the side-effect warning. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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-mutation tool, the description covers the action, the optional scope, and user-visible consequences. It does not discuss return values or error handling, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema.

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?

The schema gives no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description explains the functional meaning of id_message: omitting it marks the whole chat. chat_id is not explicitly defined, though its meaning is obvious from the name and context.

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 and resource ('Отмечает чат прочитанным' – marks chat as read) and clarifies two operational modes (whole chat vs specific message). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which handle read-state mutation.

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?

It gives clear guidance on the id_message parameter ('Без id_message — весь чат'), defining when to mark the whole chat vs a single message. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but no sibling tool offers this action, so the context is sufficient for selection.

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