mark_processed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that no reply is sent and that the target is already-handled mail, but it never says what 'processed' actually does (archive, move, label?), whether it is reversible, or what side effects occur. The output schema covers return shape, so that omission is less costly.

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?

One tight sentence with the core constraint front-loaded and examples packed into a parenthetical. No redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 one-parameter mutation with an output schema, the purpose and usage hints are largely sufficient. The gap is functional ambiguity about what marking as processed changes on the mailbox, which matters for an irreversible write.

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 needed to explain the single required parameter, and it does not mention email_id at all. An agent must infer that the argument is an email identifier rather than, say, a subject line or index.

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?

Specific verb ('mark ... as handled') plus resource ('an email') and a clarifying constraint ('without replying') that separates it from create_reply. The parenthetical examples of spam/thank-you/duplicates sharpen the intent further. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully 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?

'Without replying' plus the example categories imply when this is appropriate versus create_reply or escalate_to_human, but the routing is inferred rather than stated. No explicit when-not guidance or prerequisites are given.

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