Mark all emails as unread, optionally filtered by sender, with a dry-run mode to preview changes before applying.
Mark all emails as unread, optionally filtered by sender
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dryRun | No | If true, report exactly what would change and do not modify anything | |
| sender | No | Optional: only mark emails from this sender as unread | |
| mailbox | No | Mailbox (default INBOX) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.8.0Input schema / properties / dryRunAdded value: +{
+ "description": "If true, report exactly what would change and do not modify anything",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v2.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation affects 'all emails' and can be filtered by sender, but it does not mention the dryRun safety option, permission requirements, reversibility, or the impact of marking an entire mailbox unread.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and the optional filter, making it quick for an agent to parse.
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?
The purpose and filter are covered, and the schema fully documents the parameters, so an agent has enough to invoke it. However, for a bulk mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits relevant context such as dryRun usage and expected return 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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters in detail. The description only echoes the sender filter and adds no new semantic detail about dryRun or mailbox behavior, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 all emails as unread') and includes the optional sender filter. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the opposite operation, bulk_mark_read, or the singular mark_as_read.
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 implies this is a bulk operation and mentions the optional sender filter, giving some usage context. However, it does not state when to choose this over bulk_mark_read or mark_as_read, nor does it mention exclusions or preconditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.