bulk_mark_read

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

Annotations flag readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), which matches 'mark as read'. Description does not detail error handling, partial success, or persistence of changes, but annotations carry the behavioral burden adequately.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose and method, then adds performance hint. Each sentence earns its place.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and low complexity, the description covers purpose, filtering options, and efficiency. Missing details on return value (none implied) and behavior when no messages match, but overall sufficient for an agent.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond summarizing the filtering criteria; baseline score 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Mark multiple messages as read' and the resource 'messages', specifies filtering methods (by mailbox, sender substring, or both), and distinguishes from sibling tool set_message_flags by highlighting bulk operation efficiency.

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?

States when to use it ('Far faster than calling set_message_flags per message'), implying bulk scenarios. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools for single-message operations, but the context from sibling tools provides some guidance.

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