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 of disclosing behavior. It states the tool toggles read/unread state but does not mention potential side effects like updating counts or requiring authentication. It is not misleading but lacks depth for a mutating operation.

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 (in Italian) that efficiently states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted information, and it is front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given the low complexity of the tool (4 params, no output schema), the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explain the effect of the 'is_read' parameter beyond the implied toggle, nor any prerequisites or consequences. With no output schema, the description should have clarified what the tool returns or confirms success, but it remains a medium gap.

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 mentions the core verb (mark read/unread). The input schema has 4 parameters with defaults, and the description adds no specifics on how parameters like 'folder', 'is_read', or 'account_id' are used together. Since it is a simple toggle, the schema's clear names and defaults provide most meaning, but the description could clarify the interplay.

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 'Segna un messaggio come letto/non letto' (Marks a message as read/unread) clearly states the action (mark) and the resource (message), and implies toggling read state. It is specific enough and distinct from siblings like send_mail or delete_message.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_messages or read_message. However, the clear action suggests it is for toggling read status, providing some implicit usage context, but no exclusions or alternatives.

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