Mark a comment as read

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

Annotations already signal non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that the read state is the only PlanVortex-owned state on a comment and that the operation changes nothing publicly, which helps the agent understand its side-effect scope beyond the raw annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently conveys the key scoping constraint that this is a private PlanVortex-only state change.

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 simple state-toggle operation with only one required parameter and an output schema available, the description provides sufficient context. Minor gaps remain around explicit parameter clarification and usage boundaries relative to sibling tools, but nothing essential is missing for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, and the description partially compensates by clarifying the 'read (or unread)' semantics and that the operation targets a comment. However, it does not explicitly describe id_comment or the role of id_organization, leaving some burden on parameter names and the schema's one description.

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 uses a specific verb-plus-resource formulation: 'Mark a comment as read (or unread) in the PlanVortex inbox.' It further clarifies the state is PlanVortex-only and changes nothing publicly, which distinguishes it from public comment actions like reply_to_comment or hide_comment.

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?

The description gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: it manages the local PlanVortex inbox read-state and explicitly does not affect the social network. It does not name alternative tools or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the 'belongs to PlanVortex and not to the social network' statement makes the intended use case fairly unambiguous.

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