mk

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description only needs to add context. It adds the enumerable state list but says nothing about scope of effect (all folders vs current list), error behaviour for invalid targets, or how 'lista'/'ultimo' targets are resolved at call time.

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 waste-free sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It is minimal for the amount of behaviour the tool actually covers, but nothing in it is redundant.

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 two-parameter flag-setting tool with full schema coverage, explicit annotations and no output schema, the description is sufficient to call it correctly. The main omission is sibling differentiation from 'tag' and clarification of list-scoped targeting, which are useful but not blocking.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the description's list of marks simply echoes the 'marca' enum. It does not explain the 'alvos' special values ('atual', 'ultimo', 'lista') beyond what the schema says, so baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (marks) and resource (emails) plus the full set of target states, which disambiguates the cryptic tool name 'mk'. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like 'tag', which an agent could plausibly reach for instead.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The agent must infer from the verb alone that this sets flags rather than applying tags (the 'tag' sibling) or moving mail ('mv').

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