mark_chat_read

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

Adds behavioral detail beyond annotations: 'sends read receipt visible to the other person'. Annotations idempotentHint=true supports this. No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Could be slightly more structured, but overall concise and front-loaded.

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?

Given output schema exists and tool is simple, description is adequate but minimal. Could mention idempotency (already in annotations) or expected behavior if chat already read.

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%, so description must compensate. However, it only restates the parameter name as 'The chat GUID', adding no extra semantics like format or constraints.

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?

Clearly states the action 'mark a chat as read' and the resource. Distinguishes from sibling 'mark_chat_unread' by specifying it sends a read receipt.

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?

Description implies usage (when you want to mark chat as read), but no explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with alternative tools.

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