mark_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a mutation of read state but says nothing about idempotency, whether marking unread resets anything, permission requirements, or whether the change is synced to the server.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Its brevity is appropriate for the surface area, though the space saved is spent on nothing useful for the agent.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a two-parameter mutation tool with zero metadata coverage the description is too thin. It should at minimum explain the `is_read` toggle and default behavior.

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 explains neither parameter. Critically, `is_read` defaults to true, meaning omitting it marks a message read — a behavior the description's 'read or unread' phrasing leaves ambiguous rather than clarifying.

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 specific verb and resource ('Markera ett meddelande') plus the target state (read or unread), which is distinct from read_message (fetch content) and flag_message. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings, and the description is in Swedish while the tool names are English, which adds a small parsing burden.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus read_message or flag_message, nor any precondition such as needing the message to already exist or be in a given folder. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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