mark_thread_unread

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the state change but says nothing about persistence, permission/auth requirements, effects on other participants, or behavior when the thread is already unread, which are the relevant traits for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and there is no filler prose. The 'Args:' docstring block is slightly redundant boilerplate for a one-parameter tool, but it is brief rather than bloated.

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, and the single parameter is covered. What is missing is any behavioral context (auth, idempotency, effect scope), leaving a mutation tool only minimally described.

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%, but the description documents the only parameter ('ID of the thread to mark unread'), so all parameters are accounted for. It adds little beyond the schema title, but with a single required param the compensation is adequate.

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 a thread as unread'), which is unambiguous on its own. However, it never references the sibling tool mark_read, which is the direct inverse, so the agent gets no help disambiguating the pair from the text alone.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no pointer to mark_read as the alternative. Usage is only implied by the tool name itself, which is the bare minimum.

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