mark_agent_message_processing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It details automatic actions like creating an attempt, setting status, recording timestamps, and updating delivery status. Missing idempotency or error scenarios, but overall quite transparent.

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 moderately long but well-structured with a purpose statement, bullet list of automatic behaviors, and separated args/returns sections. No unnecessary sentences.

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 two parameters and presence of output schema, the description covers the tool's function, usage, side effects, and return value. It is adequate for an agent to understand and invoke correctly, though error handling is not mentioned.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description includes an 'Args' section explaining each parameter (chat_id, message_id) with required status, adding meaning beyond the schema field names.

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 tool marks a message as being processed by the agent, with specific verb and resource. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like 'mark_agent_message_failed' and 'mark_agent_message_processed'.

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 'Call this when the agent starts working on a message', providing clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, leaving some room for improvement.

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