mark_read

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the effect ('Mark inbox messages as read') and the accepted ID forms from get_inbox. It does not contradict the 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?

Two short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action, the second gives critical parameter provenance and format. No redundant information or filler.

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 simple two-parameter mutation tool with annotations covering idempotency/non-destructiveness and an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what IDs to pass and where they come from; the only notable gap is the account parameter, which is optional and largely self-explanatory from the schema.

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 does clarify message_ids: they come from get_inbox and can be bare or fullname. However, the optional account parameter is left entirely unexplained, and with zero schema descriptions the description only partially compensates for the missing parameter semantics.

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 ('Mark') and a specific resource ('inbox messages') with a clear outcome ('as read'). It differentiates this tool from the many retrieval-focused siblings by making the mutation explicit and even references get_inbox as the source of valid IDs.

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 clear context: use IDs obtained from get_inbox, and clarifies they may be bare or fullname. There are no true alternatives among siblings since all others are read/search operations, so explicit exclusion language is not necessary, though the description does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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