mark_agent_message_processed

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and details what the endpoint automatically sets (timestamps, statuses) and error condition (422 if no attempt). However, it lacks detail on return structure beyond 'Success message', though output schema exists.

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 well-structured with sections, concise yet thorough, no redundant sentences, and front-loaded with purpose.

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 (2 required params, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, behavior, error condition, and prerequisites completely.

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 coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema), but the description includes an 'Args' section that adds clear meaning: 'unique identifier of the chat room' and 'ID of the message to mark as processed', fully compensating for the schema gap.

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 clearly states the action 'Mark a message as successfully processed by the agent' and differentiates from siblings like mark_agent_message_processing and mark_agent_message_failed by specifying the success outcome and prerequisite.

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 explicitly says when to call ('when the agent finishes processing a message successfully'), the prerequisite ('Requires an active processing attempt...Call mark_agent_message_processing first'), and hints at the alternative for failure.

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