Mark IRC conversation as read

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

Annotations already disclose mutating, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the timestamp constraint but doesn't explain side effects, permissions, or impact on other users. No contradiction with annotations; it provides minimal additional context beyond them.

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 with no filler, front-loading the action and scope. All words contribute to describing the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values are covered externally. However, missing parameter explanations and usage context make the description only minimally complete for a 3-parameter tool, relying heavily on annotations and the title.

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. It references 'target' and 'timestamp' but does not define them precisely, and it completely omits the optional 'account' parameter. Timestamp format and target semantics remain unclear, leaving significant gaps.

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 clearly states the action ('send a read marker') and defines the scope ('up to the given timestamp for a target'). It differentiates from sibling tools like irc_send_message or irc_read_history by focusing on updating read state rather than sending or fetching 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 implies usage for marking a conversation read but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or preference over sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer the intended context.

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