messagerie_marquer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond restating the operation: no mention that it is idempotent, non-destructive, requires valid message ids, or what happens on partial failure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is as much under-specification as conciseness.

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 two-parameter state-toggle tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits return behavior, error handling for invalid ids, and the scope of the batch update, leaving gaps an agent would want covered.

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?

Reported schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It conveys the two possible states ('lus ou non lus'), which maps to the 'etat' parameter's enum, and the plural 'des messages' hints that 'ids' is a collection. It does not explain id format or batch behavior, so it only partially compensates.

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 specific verb and resource ('Marque des messages') plus the state being set ('lus ou non lus'), which clearly separates it from siblings like messagerie_lire or messagerie_lister. It stops short of naming any sibling or the batch scope explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus related siblings such as messagerie_lire, messagerie_non_lus, or messagerie_deplacer. The agent must infer the use case purely from the single declarative sentence.

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