mark_message_as_read

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the action without explaining side effects (e.g., read receipts, persistence), prerequisites, or whether the operation is reversible. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 sentence with front-loaded purpose. While concise, it is overly brief and omits necessary details, making it more under-specified than efficiently concise.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description fails to explain the return value or behavior after marking messages read. Given the complexity of the readMessages parameter array, the description is incomplete for effective tool use.

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 input schema covers 50% of parameters with descriptions (instanceName has description, readMessages does not). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, leaving the structure and semantics of readMessages items undocumented.

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 resource ('messages as read'), clearly stating the action and target. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'mark_chat_unread' by operating on messages rather than an entire chat.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., marking entire chat unread or sending read receipts). The description implies usage for marking messages read, but lacks context or exclusions.

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