gv_mark_read

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden for a state-changing operation. It does not say whether the change is idempotent, whether it requires an authenticated session, whether it applies per-conversation or globally, or what happens if the conversation ID is invalid or already 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. The action is stated first and nothing extraneous is included.

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 one-parameter tool with a fully documented schema, the definition is minimally sufficient to invoke correctly. But as an unannotated mutation tool it omits side effects, authentication expectations, and the relationship to gv_read_sms, leaving real gaps an agent would want covered.

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% and the single parameter is documented as 'The conversation ID to mark as read.' The description adds no format hints, sourcing guidance (where to obtain a conversation_id), or constraints, so it sits at the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Mark an SMS conversation as read.' An agent can understand the action immediately. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling gv_read_sms, which plausibly also touches read state, so the boundary between the two is left ambiguous.

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 guidance on when to call this versus gv_read_sms or gv_list_sms, no prerequisites (e.g., login state, conversation ownership), and no stated exclusions. The agent must infer the workflow context entirely.

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