Marcar como tratado

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), and the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it advances a local cursor, exits the inbox, and performs a Discord ack. It does not discuss permissions or return behavior, so it stops short of 5.

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 sentence front-loads the core action, then the side effects, then the usage condition. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 whose annotations carry the safety profile and whose schema is fully described, the description supplies purpose, side effects, and usage trigger. No output schema is needed given the format parameter, so nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema fully documents channelId, messageId, and the format enum, including the default-to-latest behavior. The description restates the messageId default but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: marks a conversation as handled up to a message. It goes beyond the name by describing the concrete effects (advances the local cursor, leaves the inbox, acks on Discord), so an agent can distinguish it from the inbox/read_messages siblings without opening any schema.

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?

'Use quando decidir nao responder' gives a clear decision condition that selects this tool over send_message/reply_message. It does not name explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the when-to-use context is unambiguous.

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