mark_dialog_read

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

Annotations include openWorldHint=true, indicating side effects. The description confirms it modifies state (marks as read) and returns confirmation/error. However, it doesn't disclose details like irreversibility, authentication requirements, or idempotency. The description adds basic context but lacks depth for a mutation tool.

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?

Description is very concise: three short sentences using structured labels ('Когда использовать:', 'Возвращает:', 'Связанные:'). It front-loads the main purpose and wastes no words.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, clear action), the description covers the main use case, return value, and a related tool. It partly compensates for the missing schema parameter description. However, with openWorldHint, more detail on side effects would be beneficial. Overall, fairly complete.

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 0% for the single parameter 'user_id'. The description implies the parameter is the user whose dialog is marked ('в диалоге с пользователем'), but it doesn't explicitly specify whether it's the other party or the current user. It adds basic meaning but could be more precise.

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?

Description clearly states the tool marks all messages in a dialog as read ('Пометить все сообщения в диалоге с пользователем как прочитанные'). It identifies the resource (dialog) and action (mark as read). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'после прочтения диалога, чтобы убрать счётчик непрочитанных' (after reading a dialog, to clear the unread counter). It also mentions a related tool (list_dialogs). However, it doesn't provide exclusions or alternatives for similar actions.

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