email_mark_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits, such as whether the tool is idempotent, requires authentication (implied by parameters), or what happens if the email is already marked as read.

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 very concise (one sentence), but it is too brief, omitting essential information, so it does not earn its place despite being short.

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 tool requiring authentication and having an output schema, the description is incomplete; it lacks details on authentication, parameter roles, and return behavior, making it insufficient for correct invocation.

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 meaning to the four parameters (uid, folder, email, password). It does not explain that uid is the email identifier, folder is optional, or that email/password might be used for authentication.

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 an email as read,' which is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like email_delete and email_search.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as suggesting to first list emails with email_read_inbox, or mentioning prerequisites like authentication.

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