Update the read/unread flag of a specific email by providing its ID, letting you change its state in your Outlook mailbox.
将某封邮件标记为已读或未读。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | 邮件 ID | |
| isRead | No | true 标记已读，false 标记未读，默认 true |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), is idempotent, and is not destructive. The description adds the useful detail that it can set an email to either read or unread, rather than just 'read', but it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as whether a missing id causes an error or whether any side effects occur.
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 short sentence with no filler. It could be slightly more front-loaded by naming the tool's effect more explicitly, but it is efficient and easily parsed.
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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description is basically sufficient. It lacks explicit notes about default behavior or error conditions, but the schema documents isRead defaults and the annotations cover safety semantics.
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 id and isRead are already documented precisely. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond confirming the state change, but the schema carries the semantic weight.
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 a clear verb ('mark') and a specific resource ('an email'), and explicitly names the two possible outcomes (read or unread). It is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like list_emails/get_email (read-only) and create_draft (composing), though it does not name them.
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 intended use is implied by the description: use this tool when the agent needs to change an email's read state. It does not explicitly say when to prefer it over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, but the sibling set makes the use case fairly inferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.