toggle-chat-favorite

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the HTTP method and path, that no body is sent, and — critically — that the operation is a non-idempotent flip, so repeated calls alternate state. Missing only auth/permission requirements and error behavior.

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?

Three short sentences: purpose first, then the mechanics, then the state-flip caveat with a verification pointer. Nothing extraneous, and the most failure-prone detail (flip semantics) is surfaced rather than buried.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers everything needed: the effect, the fact it is not idempotent, and how to check the resulting state via list-chats. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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?

Single parameter at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already defines chat_id as UUID or numeric id. The description reinforces its role by embedding it in the endpoint path, but adds no new format or constraint detail.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Toggle the favorite (bookmark) flag of a chat') and pins it to a concrete endpoint (POST /api/v1/chats/{chat_id}/favorite). The chat scope also implicitly separates it from the sibling toggle-message-favorite.

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?

Explains the operational semantics of use (each call flips state; verify via list-chats), which tells the agent when this is the right call and how to confirm it. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with toggle-message-favorite or list-chats as a preferred alternative for reading state.

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