mark_message_handled

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well: it explains that the tool toggles handled state, removes the message from the open list, supports reopening, and that it is local-only with no OwnerRez call. This gives an agent a clear mental model of side effects beyond a mere command name.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and every phrase earns its place—especially the useful caveat that this is local bookkeeping only.

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 two-parameter local toggle with an output schema available, the description is mostly complete. It covers behavior, side effects, and the external-system boundary. The main gap is the lack of explicit parameter documentation, but the schema provides types, requiredness, and the default, so the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it never explicitly explains event_id or handled. The phrases 'handled (or reopen it)' and 'removing it from the open list' hint at the handled boolean and the message identity, but the meaning of event_id and the role of the handled default are left to inference.

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'), a clear resource ('a stored message'), and states the effect ('handled (or reopen it)', 'removing it from the open list'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it is local bookkeeping and does not call OwnerRez, so an agent can tell it apart from message-related operations like send_message or list_open_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 provides clear context about when this tool is appropriate: it is for local bookkeeping of message handled-state, and explicitly warns that it does not call OwnerRez. This functions as a when-not-to-use signal, though it does not name an alternative tool or give more detailed decision criteria.

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