imap_mark_as_unread

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

The description only states the action without disclosing any behavioral traits. With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but fails to mention whether the operation is reversible, requires authentication, or has side effects (e.g., impact on other flags). This is insufficient for safe agent usage.

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 (5 words) and front-loaded with the verb. It efficiently conveys the core action. However, it is perhaps too terse and could benefit from a bit more context without being verbose.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many siblings, the description is incomplete. It fails to provide usage context, behavioral details, or parameter guidance. An agent would lack crucial information to use this tool correctly without prior knowledge.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters like 'uid', 'folder', 'accountId', and 'accountName'. It does not explain usage or formatting hints, but the schema is self-explanatory.

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') and the resource ('an email as unread'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It effectively distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'imap_mark_as_read' by specifying the state change. The verb+resource structure is precise and unambiguous.

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 versus alternatives like 'imap_mark_as_read' or other email manipulation tools. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an active connection) or context for its use. The description lacks any comparative context to help an agent decide among siblings.

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