joltsms_mark_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses scope — number_id marks ALL messages on a number, which is a real side effect — but says nothing about reversibility, idempotency, permissions, or what a failed/missing id returns. Partial behavioral 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?

Front-loads the action in one line, then uses a tight bulleted structure for the two mutually exclusive modes, and closes with the motivating use case. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the essentials are present. The gap is minor: the schema permits an empty object while the description demands exactly one argument, and no confirmation/return behavior is described.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters including accepted formats (UUID or phone number). The description restates the same information rather than adding syntax, defaults, or edge-case meaning beyond it.

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 messages as read') and immediately differentiates the two granularities: single message via message_id versus all messages on a number via number_id. An agent knows exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear context ('Use after extracting an OTP to keep the inbox clean') and enforces the mutual-exclusion rule ('Provide exactly ONE of'). It does not name a when-not condition or point to a sibling alternative, but there is no competing mark-read tool in the sibling list.

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