evolution_chat_mark_unread

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the mutation action ('mark as unread') but fails to mention effects such as whether notifications are affected, whether it works on groups, or if the chat must have been previously read. The minimal description leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 of 5 words, which is efficient. However, it may be too terse; a bit more detail (e.g., clarifying 'lastMessage') would improve without sacrificing conciseness.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a complex nested parameter ('lastMessage'), the description is far from complete. It does not explain the tool's behavior, side effects, or the role of 'lastMessage'. A mutation tool like this requires richer context for safe invocation.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The complex 'lastMessage' parameter is critical (it defines the last message to mark unread) but the description does not clarify its role or importance, reducing semantic value.

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 a chat as unread' clearly states the verb and resource, distinguishing it from the sibling 'evolution_chat_mark_read' by specifying the opposite action. However, it could be more specific about what constitutes a chat (e.g., by JID).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'evolution_chat_mark_read', nor any prerequisites (e.g., chat must exist, instance must be connected). The description lacks explicit context for usage.

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