Mark Chat Message Read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden: it does disclose that this is a mutation, requires confirm=True, and affects unread counters. However, it doesn't say whether all prior messages become read, whether permission is required, or whether the action is reversible.

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, front-loaded with the effect and followed by the mutation/confirm requirement. No filler, though the parenthetical is slightly awkward.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the key side effect and the confirm gate but leaves parameter meanings and any error/precondition behavior unexplained.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains confirm=True but says nothing about chat_id or message_id semantics, e.g. that the message anchors the read position for that chat.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: mark a chat message as the last viewed one, which updates unread counters. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_unread_counters and mark_negotiations_read, though it never names them.

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 scope (per-message, per-chat read tracking) implies when it applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus mark_negotiations_read or list_chat_messages, and no prerequisites are stated.

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