messages_mark_as_read

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful behavioral detail that the mutation also marks the entire chat up to the target message as read, but the second line ('Reaches other people..., deletes, or redirects data') is generic template text that only loosely restates the destructive/open-world hints.

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?

The core purpose is front-loaded in the first line, which is good. The middle sentence is reusable template boilerplate rather than tool-specific content, and the trailing endpoint/gRPC/socket parenthetical is useful routing context but only marginally relevant to invocation.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema and three undocumented required identifiers, the description leaves significant gaps: no confirmation of reversibility, no indication of what the response contains, and no resolution of the chats_mark_as_read sibling overlap. It is under-specified for the operation's complexity.

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?

All three required parameters (chatId, channelId, messageId) have 0% schema description coverage and the description supplies no format, valid values, or relationship between them. It implies messageId and chatId from 'one message — and the chat up to it' but never explains channelId or how the three IDs interrelate, leaving the agent to guess.

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 ('Mark one message ... as read') and clarifies the scope: the message plus the chat up to it. This is more precise than the name alone. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling chats_mark_as_read, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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 only usage instruction is generic safety boilerplate ('say exactly what will happen and get the user's confirmation first'), which is not tool-specific routing guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over chats_mark_as_read or when the operation is inappropriate, so the agent must infer the trigger conditions.

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