bulk_mark_unread

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the mutational behavior (removes \Seen) but omits any side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, or batch size constraints. Adequate for a simple flag change but not comprehensive.

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?

Single sentence with no fluff. Every word contributes meaning: verb, resource, action, technical detail. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

As a bulk mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description should cover usage bounds (e.g., max email IDs), prerequisites (e.g., folder must exist), and error behavior. None are provided, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter details. It does not explain what 'folder' should be (name, path?), nor the format or semantics of 'email_ids' (e.g., UIDs). No ennumerations or additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the verb 'mark' and resource 'emails', specifying the action as 'unread' and the technical effect 'removes \Seen'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bulk_mark_read or bulk_mark_flagged.

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 bulk_mark_read or mark_unread. The description lacks context for comparative usage.

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