chats_mark_as_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that the action reaches other people and should be confirmed first, but its wording ("deletes, or redirects data") is generic boilerplate that does not accurately describe what marking a chat as read actually does.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, which is good, but the middle sentence is unscoped boilerplate that is not specific to this tool, and the parenthetical endpoint/gRPC/socket triple is developer metadata of marginal value to an agent selecting a tool.

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 two-parameter mutation with annotations covering destructiveness and openness and no output schema, the core is adequate. The missing pieces are parameter meaning and a clear statement of the actual side effect (read receipts vs. data change), which the boilerplate warning does not supply.

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% and the description supplies no meaning for chatId or channelId beyond the schema's example values. Relying on self-explanatory names is a real gap when two required identifiers must be supplied correctly.

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 and resource ("Mark a whole chat as read"), and the scope word "whole chat" implicitly separates it from the sibling messages_mark_as_read. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 an actionable instruction ("say exactly what will happen and get the user's confirmation first") and a hint that the action is visible to others, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to alternatives like messages_mark_as_read. Usage is implied through a generic safety rule rather than stated.

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