mark_email_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (marking as read) but does not elaborate on side effects, idempotency, permissions, or return format. For a simple state-change operation, this basic disclosure is adequate, but additional context would be helpful.

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 extremely concise—one sentence plus a compact Args list. Every element adds value, and the main verb+resource are front-loaded. No fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with 2 simple parameters and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage guidance, does not distinguish from the sibling 'mark_email_unread', and provides no context about error cases or behavior when the email is already read. More context would improve completeness.

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?

The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates by explaining 'uid' as the email's UID and 'mailbox' as the folder name with a default. This adds meaning beyond structural field names, but it is minimal and does not explain how to obtain a UID or handle mailbox variations.

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: 'Markera ett e-post som läst' (Mark an email as read). It uses a specific verb and resource, and immediately distinguishes from sibling mark_email_unread by the action it performs.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains the parameters and does not mention conditions such as 'use this to mark an email read, or mark_email_unread to mark as unread'.

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