mark_email_as_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It accurately states the action (toggling read status) but lacks details on side effects, such as whether it modifies the email's state permanently or triggers notifications. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise and structured with an Args section, making it easy to parse. Every sentence is necessary. However, being in Vietnamese may slightly reduce clarity for English-speaking agents, but it is still effective.

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 with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and parameter meanings. It does not mention error handling or response format, but the output schema likely covers that. It is complete enough for basic use.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It explains 'is_read' explicitly (True for read, False for unread), which is helpful. 'message_id' is simply described as 'ID of email', which is sufficient but minimal.

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 tool's function: marking an email as read or unread. The verb 'mark' and resource 'email' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'read_email' (which reads content) and 'list_emails' (which lists emails).

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 like 'mark_email_as_unread' (if existed) or other email tools. It does not mention prerequisites or context, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.

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