mark_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the core function without disclosing side effects, idempotency, permissions, or whether the action is reversible. Very minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 7-word sentence, making it very concise. However, it is almost too terse; a bit more context (e.g., 'sets the seen flag') would not hurt efficiency.

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?

Given the low complexity of marking emails as read and complete schema coverage, the description is adequate but minimal. It could mention that the tool is idempotent or that it works on the specified folder, but is not severely lacking.

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 100%, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description does not elaborate on the comma-separated format or default folder.

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 action ('mark') and resource ('one or more emails') with the result ('as read'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_email or move_email by specifying a read-only state change.

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 (when you need to mark emails as read) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. Siblings like read_email likely fetch content, but no differentiation is given.

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