whatsapp_mark_chat_as_read

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds a useful return note ('Returns a success confirmation') and the state-change semantics of read/unread, but says nothing about account/auth requirements for 'this account' or any rate limits.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the action, the disambiguation from the sibling, and the return value. Front-loaded with the core purpose and no filler.

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 mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the sibling boundary, and the success return. Only minor gaps remain (no mention that an unread marking may re-trigger unread counts, or any auth context for 'this account').

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% and both parameters are documented there (read = true/false, chatId = Chat JID), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only reinforces that the boolean toggles chat-level read state; it adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema.

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 concrete verb+resource plus scope: 'Mark a whole chat as read or unread on this account.' The word 'whole chat' plus the explicit contrast with whatsapp_mark_message_read makes the boundary between the two tools 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?

Names the alternative tool (whatsapp_mark_message_read) and the condition that selects it ('for one message'), which is exactly the kind of routing an agent needs among ~90 siblings. It stops short of stating prerequisites or edge cases (e.g. group vs. individual chats), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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