Clear an inbox item's unread-reply flag
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_id | Yes | Inbox item id |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | Human-readable confirmation of the action |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds some behavioral detail by specifying that this is a flag-clearing operation, not a deletion or full-read state change. It does not contradict the existing annotations, and the idempotent, non-destructive hints are already covered by annotations. It could add more context about reversibility or side effects, but the current level is acceptable.
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?
Seven words, with no fluff or repetition. The key verb and object are front-loaded, making the intent immediately readable.
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, idempotent, non-destructive operation with an output schema and complete parameter documentation, this description is mostly sufficient. The main missing piece is usage differentiation from similar inbox actions, but the core behavior is clearly specified.
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 only parameter, item_id, is fully described by the schema ('Inbox item id'), and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add much, so it gets the baseline score without adding redundant parameter details.
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?
Description uses a specific verb ('Clear') and a specific resource ('an inbox item's unread-reply flag'), going beyond the generic title 'Mark read'. It meaningfully separates this from siblings like inbox.accept, inbox.decline, inbox.dismiss, and inbox.acknowledge.
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?
No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus closely related sibling tools such as inbox.acknowledge, inbox.dismiss, or inbox.accept. The intended scenario is only implied by the verb 'clear', not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
