imap_mark_as_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a notable behavioral trait: batching multiple UIDs into a single IMAP STORE round-trip. However, it does not mention side effects, reversibility, error behavior, or what happens on a successful call, which are meaningful gaps for a mutating tool.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a relevant batching tip. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundant preamble.

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 low-complexity mutation tool with all parameters documented in the schema and no output schema, the description provides enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It omits return/error details, but those are not forced by an output schema or complex side effects.

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 baseline is 3. The description's array/round-trip guidance is already present in the uid parameter's schema description, so the free text adds little new semantic 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Mark one or many emails as read.' This makes the core operation clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling imap_mark_as_unread or imap_flag_email beyond the verb phrase, so sibling differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 gives explicit batch guidance: 'pass an array to flag N messages in one IMAP STORE round-trip (useful when triaging).' This tells an agent when the array form is valuable. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so no exclusion or alternative routing is provided.

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