mark_conversations_read

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without detailing side effects, permission requirements, whether the operation is idempotent, or what the output schema contains. The agent lacks critical context for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded, immediately stating the purpose, then covering the parameter. Every word is necessary.

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 and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description is minimally complete. It lacks context about error handling, relationship to other conversation tools, and use cases. For a standalone mutation, it suffices but is not comprehensive.

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 description adds a brief explanation for the only parameter: 'List of conversation IDs to mark as read.' This clarifies the purpose beyond the schema, which only has a title 'Conversation Ids' and type. However, it provides no additional constraints like format or expected length.

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's purpose: 'Mark multiple conversations as read.' This verb+resource pair is specific and distinct from sibling tools, none of which perform a similar 'mark' operation. However, it could be more explicit about what 'mark as read' entails (e.g., whether it affects unread counts or acknowledges all messages).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_unread_count' or 'list_conversations.' It does not mention prerequisites, constraints, or scenarios where the tool should be avoided.

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