Отметить комментарий прочитанным

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the exact effect (removes the unread marker), which is useful, but it does not mention idempotency, permissions, or behavior for invalid or nonexistent comments. This is adequate for a simple state change but not rich.

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 a single short, direct sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description plus schema cover the essential invocation details: what action is performed and which identifiers are required. The only minor gap is the absence of return-value or error behavior, which is less critical for such a simple operation.

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 100%: both id and commentId are already described with meaningful Russian labels ('Идентификатор тикета' and 'Идентификатор комментария'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('снимает' — removes) and a specific resource ('отметку о непрочитанном ответе поддержки' — unread marker of a support reply), making the mark-as-read action clear. It is distinct from related support-ticket siblings like support_ticket_reply or support_ticket_get, though it does not explicitly name 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or alternative-routing guidance. The intended use is implied by the action itself — call this when an unread marker should be cleared — and no sibling tool performs the same operation, but the description leaves the context to inference.

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