update_emailMark an email as read or unread and move it to another folder in your OVH Exchange mailbox.
Marque un email comme lu/non lu et/ou le déplace vers un autre dossier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| itemId | Yes | Identifiant EWS de l'email | |
| markAsRead | No | true pour marquer comme lu, false pour marquer comme non lu | |
| moveToFolder | No | Nom du dossier de destination (nom d'affichage ou nom standard: inbox, sent, drafts...) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the mutation actions ('marks as read/unread and/or moves') but does not disclose potential side effects, such as whether moving removes the email from the original folder, whether the folder must already exist, or what happens if only itemId is provided without optional parameters. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.
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 sentence that directly captures the two main supported operations. It contains no fluff, redundant phrasing, or extraneous details. The structure is appropriately concise and front-loaded.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It does not clarify behavior when optional parameters are omitted, whether both actions can be combined safely, or constraints on folder names. The schema covers parameter meanings, so the tool is callable, but some edge-case behavior remains ambiguous.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the structure already documents itemId, markAsRead, and moveToFolder fully. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond restating the two actions. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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, specific action: 'Marks an email as read/unread and/or moves it to another folder.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_email, get_email, search_emails, and list_folders, which serve different operations. The verb and resource are explicit, so an agent can immediately understand what the tool does.
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 implies when to use the tool (when updating an email's read state or folder location), but it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives. No mention of 'use send_email for sending' or 'use get_email for reading' appears. The usage context is clear but left to inference rather than explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.