Outlook Assistant

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('marks an email as read or unread') but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a mutating operation, what permissions are required, whether it's reversible, or what the response looks like. For a tool that modifies email state with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the tool modifies email state (a mutation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or return values. For a tool with 2 parameters and potential impact on user experience, more context is needed.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('id' and 'isRead') with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('marks') and resource ('an email'), specifying the action of changing read status. It distinguishes from siblings like 'read-email' (which likely displays content) and 'move-emails' (which changes location). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the 'unread' option in the main statement, though it's implied.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an email ID from 'list-emails' or 'search-emails'), nor does it differentiate from similar tools like 'read-email' (which might mark as read automatically). Usage context is implied but not stated.

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