update_inbox

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'updates' status, implying mutation, but does not disclose any side effects, permissions needed, or what happens when status is set to 'archived' (e.g., does it remove from inbox?).

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 that front-loads the core action. It is not verbose, but given the simplicity of the tool, it is appropriately sized. No wasted words.

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 simple update tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate to convey the basic purpose. However, it lacks context on how the tool interacts with other inbox states (e.g., archived vs. unread), and no information on return values or errors.

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% and already documents both parameters (id, status) with enum values. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool updates the unread/read status of the inbox, using specific verb '更新します' (update) and resource '受信トレイ' (inbox). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'archive_all_inbox' or 'get_inbox'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not clarify when to use 'update_inbox' instead of 'archive_all_inbox' or 'get_inbox'.

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