mailroom_mark_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses only that read=false marks unread. It says nothing about whether the change persists server-side, whether it requires a specific account/folder context, or what happens on failure — significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

A single tight sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the variant case parenthesized. There is no 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 four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: the schema covers parameters, but behavioral context (persistence, account resolution, failure modes, return value) is absent and the description does nothing to fill it.

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 100% and every parameter (id, read, folder, account) is documented in the schema. The description's only added semantic — read=false means unread — is already stated in the read parameter's own description, so it contributes no new meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (mark a message as read) plus the inverse operation via read=false, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not distinguish itself from near-neighbors such as email_mark_read or mark_inbox_read, which the agent must disambiguate by name alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description makes clear the tool sets read state and can reverse it, but says nothing about when to reach for it versus mailroom_read, email_mark_read, or mark_inbox_read. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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