mark_chat_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states the basic effect ('as read for the current user') but says nothing about idempotency, whether it triggers read receipts/notifications for other participants, or permission requirements 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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Efficient and readable, though extremely minimal.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and the single parameter's origin is covered. Still, for a mutation tool with zero annotations, the absence of any behavioral detail (side effects, idempotency) leaves gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It names the parameter and its source ('Use list_chats to get the chat_id'), which adds real value, but it gives no format or constraints for the chat_id 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Mark a chat as read') scoped to the current user, which is unambiguous about what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling mark_chat_unread, but the purpose itself is clear.

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?

It gives a workflow hint ('Use list_chats to get the chat_id') that helps the agent supply the required parameter. However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like mark_chat_unread or under what conditions marking read is appropriate.

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