mark_emails_as_read

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'mark as read' but lacks details on side effects, required permissions, error handling, or success confirmation. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, no unnecessary words. Efficiently conveys the essential information.

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 tool's simplicity (3 parameters, straightforward action) and the existence of an output schema (as indicated by context), the description is mostly complete. However, it omits details on handling already-read emails or error cases, but these are minor 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning by suggesting email_ids come from list_emails_metadata, which is useful but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond schema descriptions.

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 one or more emails as read' using the resource 'email_id'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_emails or move_emails by specifying the exact operation and mentioning a prerequisite step.

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 explicitly instructs to use list_emails_metadata first to obtain email_ids, providing a clear prerequisite. However, it does not mention when to avoid this tool or contrast it with alternatives like marking as unread, which is missing from siblings.

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