set_read_state

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false (it's a write operation), destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the confirmation requirement (confirm='MARK') and explicit user approval need, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't mention side effects, failure modes, or what happens if approval isn't given.

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?

Two concise sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action. The confirmation requirement is efficiently stated.

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 4-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description is thin. The uid and folder parameters are entirely unexplained. No mention of behavior on invalid uid/folder, return values/flags, or how approval is obtained. The output schema exists, but the description still leaves critical parameter and workflow gaps.

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 carries full parameter documentation burden. It only mentions 'state' (read/unread, which the enum already covers) and 'confirm' (which the schema const already defines). The uid and folder parameters are completely undocumented in both the description and schema (no description coverage), leaving the agent guessing about their format and meaning.

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 the tool sets state to 'read' or 'unread', which is a specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't clarify what resource is being modified (mails/messages), relying on the tool name. The sibling tools like read_mail and mail_status suggest this marks mail read state, but the description doesn't spell this out.

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?

It mentions requiring 'exact user approval and confirm='MARK'' which conveys a prerequisite/confirmation requirement. However, it doesn't explain when to use this vs. alternatives like read_mail, or when NOT to use it. The sibling differentiation is minimal given mail_status and read_mail exist.

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