Bulk Mark Emails Read/Unread

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool emits progress notifications and returns success/failed counts, which are useful behavioral traits. It also warns about silent no-ops if sourceFolder is incorrect. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences, starting with the core action. The detailed sourceFolder guidance is necessary and well-structured, though slightly lengthy. Every sentence adds value.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the main purpose, important parameter guidance, and behavioral details. It lacks information about the output structure, but the output schema presumably covers that.

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 has 67% coverage (descriptions for emailIds and sourceFolder). The description adds context for sourceFolder beyond the schema, explaining its importance and pitfalls. For isRead, the description implies its role (read/unread toggle) which is not in the schema. This adds value.

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 begins with a clear and specific action: 'Mark multiple emails as read or unread.' It distinguishes this tool from its siblings like 'mark_email_read' (single email) and 'bulk_star' (starring). The verb 'mark' and resource 'emails' are precise.

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 explicit guidance on when to pass the 'sourceFolder' parameter, including the rationale (IMAP UIDs are folder-scoped) and a warning about 'All Mail'. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus single-mark tools, but the name 'bulk' implies the distinction.

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