mark_msg_as_read

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only restates the tool's basic effect. It does not disclose idempotency, whether the message must already exist, any state change consequences, or how it interacts with other message-read operations. This is a minimal functional statement rather than transparent behavior disclosure.

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 concise sentence with no filler or redundant detail, and the key action is placed at the front. It is appropriately brief for a one-parameter tool, though it does not add differentiation.

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 the absence of annotations and output schema, the minimal description leaves important context unspecified, especially the distinction between marking a single message read and the sibling read_group_messages. The agent can infer the basic call but not the appropriate selection among related message-read tools.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, but the parameter description is terse ('Message ID'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. Per the high schema coverage baseline, a 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a clear verb and resource ('Mark message as read') that states the tool's core operation. However, it does not distinguish the singular mark_msg_as_read from the sibling read_group_messages, which may perform a similar bulk operation.

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?

No usage context is given: the description does not say when to mark a single message as read, when to prefer read_group_messages, or any prerequisites. An agent must infer the intended use solely from the tool name.

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