mark_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies mutation but does not disclose behavior around null values, idempotency, server synchronization, or what happens if both read and flagged are null.

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 filler. It efficiently communicates the core action despite being terse in other dimensions.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the target email is identified, how the boolean/null parameters interact, or what side effects are expected.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'read' and 'flagged' via 'read/unread' and 'flagged/unflagged', but it does not explain 'uid', 'account', or 'mailbox', leaving the targeting semantics unclear.

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 concrete verb ('mark') and identifies the resource ('an email') plus the exact state changes ('read/unread and/or flagged/unflagged'). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_email, move_email, or add_label.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as add_label/remove_label for labels or move_email for folder moves. It also does not mention prerequisites like the email existing in the specified mailbox.

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