mark-as-read

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

The description discloses the core behavior (toggle read status) but does not address side effects, such as whether it changes server state or is idempotent. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but the tool is simple enough that the missing details are not critical.

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, concise sentence with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose.

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 simple toggle tool with three well-described parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does. It could mention return behavior or idempotency, but the current level is sufficient for basic use.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema, merely restating the isRead parameter's effect. The UID and folder parameters are explained in the schema, so the description doesn't need to add much.

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 action ('Marks an email as read or unread') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'read-email' (which retrieves content) and 'send-email', making its purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't explain when to mark as read vs. using 'read-email' to automatically mark as read, or whether it should be used after reading. The context of use is left implicit.

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