Mark Messages as Read

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the nuance that only specific messages are affected, which is useful, but it does not disclose effects like read receipts or reversibility. It neither adds rich context nor contradicts annotations.

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 description is a single sentence of nine words, front-loaded with the action and object. Zero filler or redundancy.

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 low-complexity tool with two fully documented parameters and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It would benefit from noting whether marking as read has side effects on chat state, but overall it sufficiently defines the operation.

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 100%, with both remote_jid and message_ids having clear descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Mark specific messages as read in a WhatsApp chat' uses a specific verb ('mark') with a clear object and context. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like update_message or delete_message by specifying the read-state action.

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 when marking messages as read, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions. With sibling tools like update_message, the description lacks guidance on differentiation.

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