mark_as_read

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

The description only states the action and location ('inbox'), leaving unspecified side effects, return value, authentication requirements, or error conditions. Since no annotations are provided, this minimal statement does not disclose whether the operation is reversible or if it triggers notifications.

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 with no redundant words, clearly front-loading the verb and object. It is appropriately sized and wastes no words.

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?

While the tool is simple, the description lacks guidance on how the ID is obtained, what the tool returns, and how it relates to sibling tools. The absence of annotations and output schema increases the need for behavioral and usage context, which is not provided.

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 single parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema ('The ID of the email to mark as read'), so the description adds no additional parameter context. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 the specific verb 'mark' and names the resource 'an email', making the action distinct from sibling tools like read_email (which retrieves content) or get_unread_emails (which lists). It clearly states the primary function and scope.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states the action without indicating prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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