mark_read

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the action is a mutation (marking messages), but it does not explain whether the operation is idempotent, whether it affects only unread messages, how the 'quantidade' parameter bounds the action, or any consequences such as sync behavior or permission requirements.

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 efficient sentence that starts with the action verb and contains no filler. It is concise and front-loaded, though its brevity limits how much context it provides.

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 mutation tool with three parameters and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It leaves ambiguity about which messages are marked, what 'quantidade' means, what 'instance' refers to, and what kind of confirmation or resulting state can be expected. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing parameter and behavior semantics.

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 0%, and the description does not explicitly explain any of the three parameters. It loosely hints at 'chat' and 'quantidade' through 'conversa' and 'últimas mensagens', but the meaning of 'instance' and the precise effect of 'quantidade' are left undefined.

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, 'Marca' (marks), and a clear resource: the latest received messages of a conversation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_text or get_messages, and makes the action immediately identifiable.

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 says what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. There is no explicit routing or contextual hint beyond the tautological 'when you need to mark as read'.

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