outlook_mark_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It correctly indicates a mutation (changing is_read) but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, permissions, or error conditions. The behavior is adequately described for a simple boolean update.

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 sentence, very concise, and front-loads the action. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., stating parameter requirements explicitly) without adding length.

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 tool has 2 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal but covers the essential purpose. It does not explain return values or error handling, which would be expected for completeness, but the simplicity of the operation partially justifies the brevity.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It mentions is_read and setting it to True or False, which mirrors the schema. It adds that the tool operates on a single message, but does not clarify the format or source of message_id, failing to fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 a single message as read or unread) and mentions the key parameter (is_read). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like outlook_read_message by using the verb 'mark' instead of 'read', but does not explicitly call out the difference.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or suggestions for related tools like outlook_read_message or outlook_flag_message.

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