mark_email_unread

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. However, it only says 'mark as unread' and provides no details about side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what the operation does beyond the literal action. This is insufficient for a tool that modifies email state.

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 stating the purpose and a simple Args block. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary fluff. The structure is clear and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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, the description covers the essential operation and parameter meanings. However, it lacks any context about side effects, error conditions, or usage scenarios. Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally viable but not rich. It would benefit from mentioning that it modifies the email's read/unread state.

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 description provides brief explanations for both parameters (uid as the email's UID, mailbox as folder name with default INBOX). While the schema already includes names and a default, the description adds clarity by confirming the meaning of uid and mailbox. However, the explanations are minimal and do not go beyond what the parameter names hint at.

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 'Markera ett e-post som oläst' (mark an email as unread), which is a specific verb+resource that directly distinguishes it from the sibling tool mark_email_read. The purpose is unambiguous and accurately reflects the tool's function.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention mark_email_read or any other context, and it lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions. The only context is the tool name and sibling list, which are not referenced in the description.

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