Mark fmsg messages read

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

Annotations already cover the non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive nature of the operation. The description adds one useful boundary note about get_message, but it does not disclose further behavioral implications such as read receipts or notification effects, which would be relevant for an openWorld mutation.

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, purposeful sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the caveat about get_message is concise and valuable, preventing a common misconception.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive mutation with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the definition is nearly complete. It could go deeper on potential read-receipt side effects, but the openWorldHint plus simple scope make the current level acceptable.

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 does not mention the ids parameter directly; its only semantic contribution is that the messages are 'received messages.' Since schema description coverage is 0%, this is thin compensation, although the schema itself does document ids as fmsg message IDs with array constraints.

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 states the exact action—'Mark received messages as read'—with a specific verb and resource, and the second sentence distinguishes it from get_message by noting that reading does not mark read. This clearly disambiguates it from the sibling tools.

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 a useful usage boundary: calling get_message will not mark messages read, so mark_read is the explicit step for changing read state. It does not enumerate all alternative tools, but the most relevant sibling distinction is clearly made.

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