mark_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states it changes status, but does not disclose if the operation is destructive, requires authentication, or has side effects. The mutating nature is implied but not explicitly noted.

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 sentence, very concise with no redundant words. It effectively communicates the core action. However, it may be too brief, lacking necessary details, but conciseness alone is strong.

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 three parameters, an enum, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not describe return values, behavior on errors, or the effect on the message. The tool's simplicity is not fully captured.

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 0%, yet the description does not elaborate on any parameters. It does not explain the 'uid' (message identifier), the 'flag' values (seen, unseen, etc.), or the optional 'mailbox'. The enum is self-explanatory, but the description adds no value 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'change' and the resource 'read or flagged status of a message', indicating the tool modifies message flags. It distinguishes from sibling tools like send_mail, list_messages, etc., which perform different operations. However, it does not mention that a specific message uid is required, which could be inferred from context.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_message for reading, send_mail for sending). It lacks context on prerequisites or typical use cases.

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