Mark Conversation Seen

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

With empty annotations, the description discloses the primary behavioral effect (clearing the unread badge) but does not mention other consequences (e.g., notifying the other participant via a 'seen' receipt), permission requirements, or reversibility. This is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant content. The parenthetical efficiently clarifies the real-world effect of the action.

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 one-parameter state-change tool, the description and schema together provide sufficient context. The output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values; the only missing element is explicit failure/error behavior, which is minor for this tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter thread_id is described as 'Conversation id'. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Mark') and a specific resource ('Messenger conversation'), and clarifies the outcome ('clears the unread badge'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_conversations or send_message.

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 makes the intended context obvious: use when you want to clear an unread badge for a conversation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent would not confuse it with sending messages or fetching conversations.

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