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 burden. It does disclose the core mutation (setting read_state true or false), but it does not mention permissions, whether the operation is reversible, what happens when both uid and uids are supplied, or any error/side-effect behavior.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the parenthetical '(read_state=True)' efficiently ties the human description to the schema parameter.

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?

With five parameters, zero required, no annotations, and no output schema, this one-line description is under-specified. An agent would need to infer how account and folder affect the operation, whether uid or uids is preferred, and what calling the tool returns or confirms.

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%, so the description must compensate. It maps 'one or more' to uid/uids and mentions read_state=True, but it does not explain the distinction between uid and uids, nor what folder and account mean or how they behave with defaults.

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 ('Mark') and the resource ('one or more messages') plus the direction ('read... or unread'). It is specific enough to be understood on its own, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like set_flag, which could also touch message state.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_flag, delete_messages, or move_messages. The description only states what it does, not under what circumstances it should be chosen.

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