Mark Negotiations Read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does state that this is a mutation and that confirm=True is required, which is critical to invoking it successfully rather than getting a rejection. It does not say whether the operation is idempotent, whether it decrements unread counters, or what errors arise from cross-vacancy ids.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the batching constraint and mutation/confirm caveat following in order of importance.

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 mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and a free-form nested body, the description covers the essentials needed to attempt the call but omits consequences of the mutation and failure modes. Adequate to start, not sufficient to reason about side effects.

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 0% and the body is a free-form nested object, so the description's mention of 'topic_id values' in the body at least names the expected key and its constraints (single vacancy, max 50 ids). It leaves the exact shape of topic_id (array vs scalar) and the precise effect of confirm unclear, so it only partially compensates 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Mark negotiations as read', which is distinguishable from the sibling mark_chat_message_read by resource type. It does not explicitly name that sibling or explain the distinction, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the bulk 'mark as read' operation for negotiations versus update_negotiation or move_negotiation, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The batch constraints (one vacancy, up to 50 ids) do narrow applicability usefully.

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