mark_as_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. Beyond that the description adds only the 'all messages' scope, not the behavior an agent needs: whether marking read emits read receipts to other participants, whether it is reversible, or whether it consumes unread state permanently.

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?

One short sentence that front-loads the action and scope with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 state-mutating, open-world tool with an undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description is too thin. It should at minimum define the chat identifier format and disclose the visible side effect of clearing unread status.

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 0% for the single required 'chats' parameter. The phrase 'the given chats' only restates the field name; it never says whether items are chat IDs, JIDs, phone numbers, or names, nor what happens on an unknown identifier.

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 ('mark as read') and resource ('all messages in the given chats'), which is unambiguous on its own. It loses a point because the sibling 'read_messages' plausibly also marks messages read, and the description does nothing to separate the two.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternatives such as read_messages or list_chats. The agent must infer the selection criteria from sibling names alone.

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