mark_emails_as_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the bare action. It does not disclose side effects, idempotency, whether thread_ids and message_ids can be combined, or any account/permission considerations.

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, which is good for conciseness. However, the brevity comes at the cost of necessary behavioral and parameter context, making it more under-specified than genuinely concise.

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?

Although an output schema exists and the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the tool still lacks critical context. The description does not explain required account context, how to target messages vs. threads, or the behavior when only account_id is supplied, leaving an agent with ambiguous invocation paths.

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% and the description adds no parameter information. It does not clarify how account_id relates to thread_ids and message_ids, which of thread_ids/message_ids should be used, or what happens if both are provided.

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 uses a specific verb ('mark') and a clear resource ('emails'), and conveys the intended state change to 'read'. It is immediately understandable and distinct from the sibling tool mark_emails_as_unread, though it does not explicitly call out the relationship or address the thread_ids vs. message_ids distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mark_emails_as_unread, list_emails, or search_emails. There is no mention of prerequisites, selection criteria, or scenarios where the tool should or should not be used.

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